Download a PDF of this report here.
Summary
After years of underfunding and oversubscription, fiscal year 2024 (FY24) saw thousands more farmers enroll in two federal conservation cost share programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). In FY2024, 43-44% of EQIP applicants and 53-55% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts. That is an increase of roughly 18 percentage points for EQIP and 23 for CSP from the year before and a marked improvement since IATP began tracking applications in 2021, largely attributable to additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In many states, the additional IRA resources have awarded contracts to farmers on years-long waitlists for these two programs.
Unfortunately, this momentum on conservation is at risk, with IRA funds currently frozen as of early May 2025. It is time to build on the success of the IRA, not cut off the funding in favor of other priorities. The Republican-controlled Congress is under pressure to slash Farm Bill funding. If IRA conservation funding is ended now, it could potentially deny funding for 900,000 farmer conservation projects through EQIP. These projects can improve both farms and bottom lines.
Introduction
The health of farm country in the United States is often in the eye of the beholder. If you just look at average net farm income, we’re coming down sharply from a 2022 peak.[1] If you look at life expectancy, we’re going in the wrong direction.[2] We have fewer farmers on the land, more farm consolidation, and a high percentage of farmers needing to have off-farm jobs just to get by.[3] New and beginning farmers have a hard row to hoe even to access land, let alone starting up a profitable and sustainable farm operation. Lastly, if you look at on-farm conservation, the data points to some hope while underscoring how much work still needs to happen.
The most recent Census of Agriculture told us that the U.S. has the most acres planted in cover crops in modern history, nearly 18 million acres[4], still just 2% of U.S. farmland.[5] Still, for those farmers, planting cover crops means soil stays in place and there is the potential for an extra source of income or feed for livestock. Other conservation strategies continue to spread, including reduced tillage and organic agriculture. At the same time, in parts of the Upper Midwest, we face a nitrate crisis[6] — drinking water is well beyond safe levels, Iowa’s cancer rate continues to climb[7], and we have lost most of our grasslands and biodiversity.[8] The loss of native landscapes combined with modern agricultural systems means agriculture is a major driver of climate change,[9] and also a major avenue for mitigating its worst effects.[10] It is clear that the status quo of working lands conservation is not working, or at least has not been adopted at a large enough scale to make a dent in these growing pollution problems. We need more on-farm conservation, and farmers need more financial help to make this conservation a reality on their farms.
Which brings us to two conservation cost-share programs IATP has written plenty about: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). These two programs are meant to help farmers pay for conservation improvements on their land — for EQIP a farmer might receive help planting cover crops or installing fence for management of intensive rotational grazing. If a farmer likes the results from EQIP, they might graduate to CSP and implement conservation across their whole farm, bundling multiple practices together to improve wildlife habitat, water quality, soil health, or a number of resource concerns.
Over the course of these two programs’ histories, more farmers have applied for funding than is available to meet demand. Budget sequestration of the early 2010s and then the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills weakened the funding streams for these two programs, hitting CSP especially hard. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) injected $8.45 billion into EQIP and $3.25 billion into CSP to make up for the years of underinvestment and bring the programs back to historic levels of service to farmers. IATP has been reporting on EQIP and CSP application and approval rates for the past four years, starting with our 2021 report Closed Out. With new USDA data, we show that, while each program only accounts for roughly 2.1% of U.S. farmland, the added resources from the IRA connected thousands more farmers with conservation than would otherwise have it.
How many farmers enrolled in EQIP and CSP in FY24?
In FY24, 43-44% of EQIP applicants and 53-55% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts. For EQIP, this was the highest percentage since FY18, and for CSP, this was the highest percentage since FY12. Figure 1 compares the percentage of applicants who were awarded contracts for EQIP and CSP over time from FY10 to FY24. Some clear markers in time in this line graph include the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, and the passage of the IRA, with farmer access to conservation contracts attributable to changes in funding from these policies.
As is evident in Figure 2, FY24 saw the most EQIP awards in the 15 years that we have data for, at more than 46,000 awards nationwide. CSP is still digging out of the hole left by a decade and a half of cuts, managing to award nearly 14,000 contracts to farmers in FY24, the highest since FY10.
For both EQIP and CSP, the data shows a decline in the number of applications from the previous year. The reason for the decrease is unclear — possible explanations could include an initial rush of applications after the passage of the IRA that brought in those most likely to apply for FY23, the first year IRA funding was available.
Which states connected the most farmers to contracts?
With the addition of IRA dollars to traditional Farm Bill funding, most states were able to improve on their previous numbers of farmers closed out of EQIP and CSP. Several states were able to match demand for the programs — up to eight states for EQIP and up to 20 states for CSP — and make headway on their application backlog. These states matched demand from FY24’s applicants and dipped into their deferred contracts, including those who applied in previous years but were unable to be awarded contracts due to a lack of funding.
For EQIP, states in the Northeast and Mountain West were most successful in connecting applicants to contracts, with Rhode Island, Connecticut, Idaho, Arizona, and Virginia in the top five. As in previous years, agricultural states in the Mississippi River basin rank toward the bottom, plus the repeat inclusion of North Carolina and Puerto Rico along with Illinois, Missouri, and Minnesota in the bottom five. Full details are included in Table 1.
Map 1: Percentage of EQIP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24
Map created with Mapchart.net
For CSP, some of the Pacific territories and the Mountain West were able to chip away at their backlog, with Nevada, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Idaho, and Alaska ranking in the top five. The bottom five include the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Minnesota. The full list of states and territories can be viewed in Table 2.
Map 2: Percentage of CSP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24
Map created with Mapchart.net
Why are some percentages above 100%?
In some states, (up to eight for EQIP and up to 20 for CSP), the percentage of applicants awarded contracts is shown as above 100%. This is not a typo! In states with percentages above 100, the number of contracts awarded outnumbered the number of applicants in FY24. Some of these contracts were awarded to those who applied in previous years whose applications were put into the “deferred category.” This essentially means that the application was eligible for a contract, but money might not have been available to fund the contract until later. In short, these percentages are evidence of states working through their backlog of unfunded projects.
Table 1: EQIP applications and contracts by state, Fiscal Year 2024[11]
Ranking by
|
State |
Number of
|
Number of
|
Financial
|
% of applicants
|
Percentage point
|
1 |
Rhode Island |
135-141 |
230-233 |
$5,603,117 |
165-170% |
+100-105 |
2 |
Connecticut |
157-160 |
251-254 |
$12,182,269 |
158-160% |
+113-115 |
3 |
Idaho |
704-710 |
879-887 |
$65,706,098 |
124-125% |
+72-73 |
4 |
Arizona |
221-224 |
235-237 |
$24,675,758 |
105-107% |
+61-63 |
5 |
Virginia |
743-746 |
772-776 |
$48,640,348 |
103-105% |
+72-74 |
6 |
Alaska |
58-76 |
68 |
$12,403,571 |
89-118% |
+27-56 |
7 |
New Hampshire |
413-416 |
418-430 |
$11,445,376 |
101-104% |
+62-65 |
8 |
Massachusetts |
287-299 |
288 |
$11,485,943 |
96-101% |
+39-44 |
9 |
Nevada |
148 |
141-144 |
$13,258,847 |
95-98% |
+46-49 |
10 |
Indiana |
1,464 |
1,339-1,351 |
$54,409,901 |
91-93% |
+55-57 |
11 |
Maryland |
521 |
450 |
$24,962,347 |
86% |
+47 |
12 |
New Jersey |
549-555 |
467-477 |
$26,171,235 |
85-86% |
+49-50 |
13 |
New York |
652-661 |
551-558 |
$33,554,783 |
84-85% |
+42-43 |
14 |
Hawai’i |
252-258 |
214 |
$22,192,534 |
82-85% |
+55-58 |
15 |
Wisconsin |
1,799-1,805 |
1,481-1,489 |
$58,357,182 |
82-83% |
+44-45 |
16 |
Ohio |
2,128 |
1,574-1,582 |
$58,478,033 |
73-75% |
+43-45 |
17 |
Delaware |
270-276 |
200 |
$16,706,098 |
72-75% |
+45-48 |
18 |
Washington |
722-728 |
488-492 |
$50,837,726 |
67-68% |
+39-40 |
19 |
Montana |
943-949 |
619-627 |
$57,391,088 |
65-67% |
+30-32 |
20 |
New Mexico |
784 |
479-483 |
$52,221,321 |
61-62% |
+30-31 |
21 |
Wyoming |
605-614 |
364-368 |
$36,975,760 |
59-61% |
+34-36 |
22 |
Alabama |
2,782-2,788 |
1,653-1,663 |
$57,872,565 |
59-60% |
+21-22 |
23 |
Michigan |
1,676 |
995-999 |
$47,665,008 |
59-60% |
+28-29 |
24 |
Maine |
1,054-1,057 |
625-629 |
$24,825,444 |
59-60% |
+27-28 |
25 |
Tennessee |
2,785-2,797 |
1,639-1,643 |
$94,195,509 |
58-59% |
+30-31 |
26 |
Oregon |
1,338 |
719-727 |
$52,052,292 |
53-55% |
+11-13 |
27 |
Kentucky |
2,400 |
1,162-1,170 |
$40,889,292 |
48-49% |
+23-24 |
28 |
West Virginia |
1,464-1,467 |
687-693 |
$21,697,767 |
46-48% |
+13-15 |
29 |
Oklahoma |
4,055-4,058 |
1,877-1,896 |
$60,249,870 |
46-47% |
+29-30 |
30 |
Georgia |
5,224-5,230 |
2,410-2,431 |
$107,532,274 |
46-47% |
+26-27 |
31 |
Texas |
8,235 |
3,765-3,778 |
$222,632,335 |
45-46% |
+18-19 |
32 |
Vermont |
725-737 |
321-322 |
$21,031,640 |
43-45% |
+9-11 |
33 |
South Dakota |
1,418 |
596-604 |
$44,837,034 |
42-43% |
+15-16 |
34 |
Iowa |
2,890-2,893 |
1,212 |
$65,520,714 |
41-42% |
+19-20 |
35 |
Nebraska |
3,355 |
1,304-1,313 |
$64,228,924 |
38-40% |
+12-14 |
36 |
California |
4,430-4,433 |
1,711-1,719 |
$149,208,612 |
38-39% |
+17-18 |
37 |
Pennsylvania |
2,048 |
787 |
$61,327,321 |
38% |
+18 |
38 |
Colorado |
1,420-1,423 |
538-547 |
$28,028,554 |
37-39% |
+9-11 |
39 |
Florida |
2,079-2,082 |
774-782 |
$52,303,014 |
37-38% |
+12-13 |
40 |
Utah |
1,240-1,246 |
457-463 |
$38,063,925 |
36-38% |
+12-14 |
41 |
Kansas |
2,489 |
834-838 |
$64,952,657 |
33-34% |
+4-5 |
42 |
Louisiana |
2,437 |
787-795 |
$40,021,894 |
32-33% |
+13-14 |
43 |
South Carolina |
3,133-3,136 |
913 |
$57,430,831 |
29-30% |
+8-9 |
44 |
North Dakota |
1,375-,1381 |
399-403 |
$57,093,711 |
29-30% |
-6-7 |
45 |
Mississippi |
8,762 |
2,473-2,477 |
$109,926,797 |
28-29% |
+11-12 |
46 |
Arkansas |
7,099 |
1,971-1,974 |
$101,706,271 |
27-28% |
+8-9 |
47 |
Minnesota |
4,254-4,257 |
1,149-1,153 |
$94,754,861 |
27-28% |
+5-6 |
48 |
Missouri |
4,853 |
1,309-1,317 |
$66,600,487 |
26-28% |
+1-3 |
49 |
North Carolina |
3,481-3,484 |
841-845 |
$52,533,506 |
24-25% |
+8-9 |
50 |
Illinois |
2,989-2,998 |
650-658 |
$48,480,897 |
21-22% |
+1-2 |
51 |
Puerto Rico |
1,648-1,654 |
213-216 |
$23,178,479 |
12-14% |
-14-16 |
TOTAL |
United States |
106,693-106,894 |
46,279-46,575 |
$2,697,435,026 |
43-44% |
+18-19 |
Table 2: CSP applications and contracts by state, FY24[12]
Ranking by
|
State |
Number of
|
Number of
|
% of applicants
|
Percentage point
|
1 |
Nevada |
8-17 |
35 |
205-438% |
+146-379 |
2 |
American Samoa |
11-26 |
48 |
184-437% |
NA |
3 |
Northern Mariana Islands |
12-27 |
42 |
155-350% |
NA |
4 |
Idaho |
40-52 |
111 |
213-278% |
+152-217 |
5 |
Alaska |
3-12 |
7 |
213-278% |
+180-245 |
6 |
Connecticut |
19-37 |
58 |
156-306% |
+105-255 |
7 |
Rhode Island |
22-31 |
51 |
164-232% |
+64-132 |
8 |
Michigan |
329-338 |
644 |
190-196% |
+132-138 |
9 |
New Jersey |
35-44 |
69 |
156-198% |
+131-173 |
10 |
Puerto Rico |
40-49 |
66 |
134-165% |
+52-83 |
11 |
New Hampshire |
97-106 |
130-133 |
125-135% |
+70-80 |
12 |
New York |
181-184 |
230 |
125-128% |
+69-72 |
13 |
Utah |
144-153 |
185 |
120-129% |
+59-68 |
14 |
Massachusetts |
53-65 |
69 |
106-131% |
+40-65 |
15 |
California |
231-237 |
268 |
113-117% |
+65-69 |
16 |
Kansas |
185 |
210 |
114% |
+76 |
17 |
Hawai’i |
39-51 |
47 |
92-121% |
+37-66 |
18 |
Wisconsin |
910-919 |
944-950 |
103-104% |
+58-59 |
19 |
West Virginia |
292-301 |
296 |
98-102% |
+23-27 |
20 |
Ohio |
415-424 |
383 |
90-93% |
+19-22 |
21 |
Kentucky |
489-492 |
450 |
91-93% |
+46-48 |
22 |
Delaware |
11-17 |
12 |
70-110% |
+44-84 |
23 |
Wyoming |
34-43 |
34 |
79-100% |
+22-43 |
24 |
New Mexico |
104-116 |
98 |
84-95% |
+41-52 |
25 |
Maryland |
96-105 |
90 |
85-94% |
+34-43 |
26 |
Oregon |
285-291 |
251 |
86-89% |
+44-47 |
27 |
Colorado |
204-216 |
177 |
81-87% |
+30-36 |
28 |
Missouri |
1,083-1,086 |
906 |
83-84% |
+52-53 |
29 |
Pennsylvania |
434 |
342 |
79% |
+28 |
30 |
Virginia |
336-339 |
257 |
75-77% |
+17-19 |
31 |
Texas |
351-357 |
250 |
70-72% |
+39-41 |
32 |
Nebraska |
522 |
367-370 |
70-71% |
+49-50 |
33 |
Montana |
271-280 |
189 |
67-70% |
+42-45 |
34 |
Tennessee |
843-852 |
578 |
67-69% |
+11-13 |
35 |
Indiana |
609-618 |
406 |
65-67% |
+19-21 |
36 |
Iowa |
920-923 |
593 |
64-65% |
+19-20 |
37 |
Illinois |
707-710 |
439 |
61-63% |
+30-32 |
38 |
Arizona |
33-48 |
21-24 |
50-64% |
-1-+13 |
39 |
Washington |
285-288 |
148 |
51-52% |
+18-19 |
40 |
North Dakota |
497-506 |
255 |
50-52% |
+23-25 |
41 |
Alabama |
441-450 |
226 |
50-52% |
+11-13 |
42 |
Maine |
68-80 |
36 |
45-53% |
-2-10 |
43 |
Louisiana |
617-623 |
295 |
47-48% |
+16-17 |
44 |
Vermont |
148-163 |
70 |
42-48% |
-3-9 |
45 |
South Dakota |
685-694 |
300 |
43-44% |
+22-23 |
46 |
Georgia |
1,009-1,015 |
430-433 |
42-43% |
+24-25 |
47 |
Florida |
578-581 |
217 |
37-38% |
-8-9 |
48 |
South Carolina |
1,072 |
394 |
37% |
-4 |
49 |
Oklahoma |
993-999 |
339 |
33-35% |
+13-15 |
50 |
Arkansas |
1,454 |
477-483 |
32-34% |
+13-14 |
51 |
Minnesota |
2,919-2,925 |
585 |
20-21% |
+8-9 |
52 |
North Carolina |
1,545-1,548 |
298 |
19-20% |
-5-6 |
53 |
Mississippi |
2,807 |
397 |
14% |
+6 |
54 |
Guam |
1-4 |
0 |
0% |
NA |
55 |
U.S. Virgin Islands |
1-4 |
0 |
0% |
NA |
TOTAL |
United States |
25,518-25,920 |
13,820-13,844 |
53-55% |
+22-24 |
What happens if the IRA goes away?
So far in 2025, USDA has shown that it does not intend to implement the IRA as it was passed. It has placed IRA-funded contracts under review and has asked recipients of Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants to revise their applications and remove references to climate change.[13] Meanwhile, USDA has moved to end the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities (PCSC)[14] while keeping some of the farmer-focused grants, calling the PCSC a “Biden-era climate slush fund.”[15]
On top of the canceling and repackaging of IRA contracts, USDA and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have announced the ending of leases for at least 48 offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) across the country, reducing the ability for farmers to access essential services in their communities.[16] NRCS is the service that administers EQIP and CSP contracts. Across NRCS, thousands of employees have resigned or been fired by DOGE, just after a years-long push to hire to adequate levels in county offices.[17] Knowledgeable local staff are a key part of connecting farmers with resources, especially those who are new to NRCS programs or who have unique on-farm needs.[18] This one-two-three punch of reduced resources, reduced staffing, and reduced ability for farmers to access a local office means we will see farm country’s natural resources continue to degrade.
The Agriculture Committees in the U.S. House and Senate have repeatedly tried and failed to incorporate the remaining funds from the IRA into the baseline of the Farm Bill, ensuring stable funding for conservation programs for years in the future instead of seeing the extra funds disappear by FY31. While the IRA still has funds left, Congress should pass a Farm Bill that incorporates these funds into Farm Bill baseline, providing more predictable funding for the future, while expanding cost-effective practices with climate benefits. Additional reforms such as payment caps on EQIP and a focus on serving small and diversified farms could extend the reach of conservation programs even further.
If we look at the money from the IRA set aside for EQIP and CSP that has yet to be obligated, Congress has roughly $2.62 billion left for CSP and $6.96 billion for EQIP.[19] If you have an average EQIP contract size of $7,582 (the average in FY23[20]), Congress could connect roughly an additional 917,700 farmers with EQIP contracts in future years using this funding. That’s potentially millions of acres of conservation that may never take root. While there has been a healthy debate on ways to preserve IRA funding to best benefit farmers and the land,[21] it is clear that clawing back this money and using it for other budget items is not a wise investment.
Policy Recommendations
- Protect and incorporate IRA conservation funding into the Farm Bill baseline through a regular Farm Bill process.
- Target conservation funds to high impact, low-cost practices[22].
- Enact a cap on how much any farmer can receive from EQIP.
- Increase set-asides for socially disadvantaged producers in EQIP and CSP.
- Immediately rehire all fired NRCS employees and continue the push to have county offices fully staffed.
- Keep NRCS’s county offices intact.
Conclusion
2025 marks the 90th anniversary of NRCS, rooted in helping farmers conserve land and water in the wake of the 1930s Dust Bowl. The investments in NRCS conservation programs over the past few years have been historic and have made measurable progress in solving the underfunding and oversubscription of EQIP and CSP, with access to programs matching or exceeding levels from over a decade ago. Recent actions by the administration have jeopardized the success of these investments and will likely close out thousands more farmers from needed resources while degrading working lands across the United States. If we want conservation roots to grow, we need to continue to water them. Let’s not invite another Dust Bowl.
Download a PDF of this report here.
For further reading from IATP on CSP and EQIP
Closed Out Series
Payments for Pollution Series
A note on this year’s data:
We were unable to be as precise with our data this year because of a change in NRCS’s data policy. NRCS now suppresses the number of applicants and contract awardees if there are between one and four in a state, citing privacy for farmers. This is true across all categories of applications — and because we reach our numbers by adding together all categories of applications and awards, we ended up with a wider range of possibilities than in previous years.
We believe that NRCS is misinterpreting Farm Bill statute to suppress this information, as no names or financial information of farmers are attached to this aggregate data. While NRCS cites data privacy as a reason to suppress contract numbers, those submitting FOIA requests to NRCS, the Farm Service Agency, and USDA Rural Development are still able to access farmer names, addresses, and grant amounts, which we believe is more sensitive information than the data requested for this report. We request that NRCS share aggregate data on farmer contracts as they have in the past, for the sake of transparency.
In deciding how to rank states against each other, we used the average of a state’s total range. If given more precise data, the rankings would likely shift slightly. We believe that sharing the data we have, as it is, is still helpful for public information and understanding the progress that has been made in tackling the underfunding and oversubscription issues facing EQIP and CSP.
We calculated applications by adding together all categories of applications recorded by NRCS, including eligible, ineligible, pending, deferred, and canceled. The number of applications includes those funded through regular Farm Bill funding as well as IRA funding. As we have in past reports, we combine these categories to accurately depict all applications entering into NRCS systems. NRCS does not share much information on what deems an application eligible or ineligible for funding — reasons could range from a lack of control of the land by the applicant to paperwork issues in submitting the application. Until this data is provided publicly, we will continue to include all categories of application.
Lastly, we believe it is important to report program trends in the U.S. territories. We were unable to acquire data for all territories for EQIP, but were able to do so for CSP. We encourage NRCS to collect and report data on the territories in a consistent and usable way for the public.
Acknowledgements:
We would like to thank the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition for collaborating with IATP in the drafting and submission of the FOIA request which provided the data used in this report. We would also like to thank the knowledgeable people who fact-checked the numbers used in this report.
Endnotes
[1] Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Farm Sector Income & Finances – Highlights from the Farm Income Forecast.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/highlights-from-the-farm-income-forecast.
[2] Abrams LR, Myrskylä M, Mehta NK. The growing rural-urban divide in US life expectancy: contribution of cardiovascular disease and other major causes of death. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2022 Jan 6;50(6):1970-1978. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab158. Epub 2021 Aug 12. PMID: 34999859; PMCID: PMC8743112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34999859/.
[3]National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022 Census of Agriculture. “Historical Highlights: 2022 and Earlier Census Years.” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_001_001.pdf.
[4]National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022 Census of Agriculture. “Land Use Practices: 2022 and 2017.” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_047_047.pdf.
[5] Lacy, Katherine. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The number of U.S. farms continues slow decline.”https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=58268.
[6] Marohn, Kirsti. Minnesota Public Radio News. “Southeast Minnesota struggles for common ground on nitrate pollution as health worries rise. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/10/31/does-nitrate-in-southeast-minnesotas-water-present-a-public-health-crisis.
[7] Elkadi, Nina B. Sentient Health. “What’s Driving Iowa’s Outlier Cancer Rate? It’s Complicated.” https://sentientmedia.org/what-is-driving-iowas-cancer-rate/.
[8] World Wildlife Fund. 2024 Plowprint Report. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/8mq6fdcmt4_PlowprintReport_2024_FINAL.pdf.
[9] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota 2005-2022: Report to the legislature. https://pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Iraq-3sy25.pdf.
[10] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems: Global, regional and country trends, 2000-2020. https://shorturl.at/3E3CQ.
[11] Data acquired via FOIA request to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[12] Data acquired via FOIA request to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
[13] Tri-State Livestock News. “USDA releases energy money if groups take out DEI, climate provisions.” https://www.tsln.com/news/usda-releases-energy-money-if-groups-take-out-dei-climate-provisions/.
[14] Clayton, Chris. Progressive Farmer. “USDA reboots Biden-era climate program.” https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/2025/04/14/usda-rebrands-partnership-climate.
[15]U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA Cancels Biden Era Climate Slush Fund, Reprioritizes Existing Funding to Farmers.” https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/14/usda-cancels-biden-era-climate-slush-fund-reprioritizes-existing-funding-farmers.
[16] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Local USDA offices in the crosshairs.” https://www.iatp.org/local-usda-offices-close.
[17] Wicks, Noah. Agri-Pulse. “Workforce cutbacks strip many NRCS offices of staff.” https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-strip-many-nrcs-offices-of-staff.
[18] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Opening the door for more conservation.” https://www.iatp.org/opening-door-more-conservation.
[19] National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Broken promises: Over 30,000 farmers denied funds.” https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/trump-denies-over-2-billion-in-payments-owed-to-30000-farmers/.
[20] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Costly versus cost-effective: How EQIP can be improved to serve more farmers and the climate.” https://www.iatp.org/costly-versus-cost-effective.
[21]Coppess, Jonathan and Yifan Peng. FarmDoc Daily, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois. “Taking a closer look at the conservation tradeoff issues.” https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/11/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-conservation-tradeoff-issues.html.
[22]Happ, “Costly versus cost-effective.”
