One federal policy, four different policy contexts: An examination of agri-environmental policy implementation in the Midwestern United States

Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

One federal policy, four different policy contexts: An examination of agri-environmental policy implementation in the Midwestern United States Adam Reimer ∗ , Linda Prokopy Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marsteller Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 19 September 2013 Received in revised form 14 January 2014 Accepted 16 January 2014 Keywords: Conservation Farmer Water quality Wildlife habitat Community engagement Local environmental governance

a b s t r a c t Much research attention has been given to devolved environmental policies and variation in state adoption of environmental policies. Less attention has been paid to variation in top-down federal policies, including in the agri-environmental arena. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the largest working land conservation program in the United States, incentivizing the adoption of conservation practices on active agricultural land through cost-share and technical assistance. While the program is federal, state offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) are charged with implementing the program in their state. Qualitative interviews (n = 26) were conducted with NRCS personnel in four Midwestern states to explore similarities and differences between state administrative outputs. Program outputs are determined through a mixture of national, state, and local administrative processes and are driven by dissimilarities in state resource concerns and agricultural systems. The process by which farmers apply for cost-share funding through EQIP is largely the same across states, but states vary in several important outputs, especially resource and conservation practice priority, as well as state and local partnerships. Outreach methods do not tend to vary between states; NRCS districts typically rely on passive recruitment and word-of-mouth recruitment. Divergence in state EQIP outputs constitute a significant difference in the policy context in which farmers make conservation decisions in the Midwest, which has implications for research concerning farmer behavior. While federal policies implemented across the states offer some level of consistency in the setting in which individual land managers make decisions, variation may still exist in many policies that results in different policy outputs. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Public policy in the United States has shifted since the 1970s to include a new range of policy types, including a large number of federal-state inter-governmental partnerships. Environmental regulation in particular has seen a number of important policies (including the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts) involve devolution from federal administration to state administration. These governance structures often involve U.S. Congressional mandates for states to act a certain way or achieve certain outcomes but largely leave it up to state governments to design and enforce the actual policies (Crotty, 1987; Hoornbeek, 2011). Much of the research on policy implementation has focused on the federalism aspects

∗ Corresponding author. Present address: W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, 3700 East Gull Lake Drive, Hickory Corners, MI 49060, United States. Tel.: +1 765 418 0041. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (A. Reimer). 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.01.008

of environmental policy, including state adoption and implementation of environmental measures under federal mandate (Hoornbeek, 2011; Konisky and Woods, 2012; Scheberle, 2005; Woods, 2006). The choice of policy tools is dependent on the nature of the policy problems to be addressed (Peters and Hoornbeek, 2005). Significant environmental concerns arise from modern agricultural production, including: pollution of waterways with sediment, excess nutrients, and pesticides; loss of wildlife habitat; air pollution, including greenhouse gas production; and soil loss and degradation (Dowd et al., 2008; Rabalais et al., 2001; Ribaudo, 2012). The federal government has been active in conservation policy for decades, investing significant financial and technical resources through incentive-based, voluntary agri-environmental programs (Batie, 2009; Claassen et al., 2001). Unlike devolved environmental policies, these programs largely rely on state-by-state implementation by federal agencies. This paper contributes to the policy literature by exploring how federal agri-environmental programs are implemented in differing social, environmental, and political contexts represented by the states.

606

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

The political environment in the United States has traditionally made it difficult for the federal government to directly regulate the environmental impacts of farms, leaving primarily non-coercive policy tools available (Dowd et al., 2008). A number of non-coercive tools exist, from subsidies to trading schemes to education campaigns (Peters and Hoornbeek, 2005). The exact characteristics and causes of the environmental problem being addressed affect what policy mechanisms may be effective at mitigating that problem. In rural agricultural landscapes, the wide range of resource and environmental concerns add complexity to policy designs, requiring a range of policy tools (Batie, 2009; Dowd et al., 2008). In addition to the diversity of problems, significant geographic variations exist; for example, water use efficiency and water conservation are significant concerns in the western U.S. but not in the east (Schaible and Aillery, 2012). These factors require federal policies that utilize multiple policy tools or mechanisms and can be applied in a multitude of local resource concerns and governance arrangements. Policies must also be flexible enough to meet changing resource concerns and confront evolving environmental problems. A number of programs exist in the U.S. that are designed at least in part to promote environmental activities on private lands, especially on active farm ground. These programs include federal Farm Bill programs, state and local government programs, and funds from private conservation organizations (Claassen, 2003; Dowd et al., 2008). As the largest federal working lands conservation program by both funding and acres impacted (Stubbs, 2010; USDA, 2011a,b), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) represents a major source of public funds for farmer conservation. In addition to providing cost-share funds to farmers, EQIP provides significant funding for conservation technical assistance (Claassen, 2003). Rural environmental policy in general and agricultural conservation policy in particular have been seen as simultaneously taking on national and global scope and devolving to state and local governance structures (Sabatier et al., 2005; Weber, 2003). EQIP represents a semi-devolved governance structure, where program procedures and goals largely emanate from the national level and program administration occurs locally. Given the complex decision-making process that farmers undergo when deciding whether or not to participate in conservation programs (or engage in conservation activities at all), it is important to understand the setting in which farmers are making decisions. Conservation programs are a major contextual factor in farmer decision-making, from the cost-share and subsidy payments offered to the technical assistance for practice implementation. Under EQIP, states have control over a number of aspects of the program, including: which practices to fund and promote; how to promote those practices and the program in general; identification of the major environmental problems within the state (which help dictate which practices to promote); and the partnerships they establish within the state. These differences in program administration between states may constitute important differences in the policy context. Understanding the difference in program implementation across the country is important for understanding conservation choices made by rural land managers. This study explores variation in EQIP administration between states and the potential impact on farmer program participation. By interviewing a small number of conservation professionals in a few states within a region, this research is intended as an exploratory first step. While not intended to be representative of the entire U.S., from this exploratory research we identify major themes in policy implementation and identify areas for future research. History of EQIP EQIP was established in the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the 1996 Farm Bill) as part of a

significant reorganization of federal conservation programs. EQIP took the place of several programs, including the Water Quality Incentives Program and the Agricultural Conservation Program (Schertz and Doering, 1999; Stubbs, 2010). Since the inception of the program in 1996, EQIP has been amended and reauthorized twice (in 2002 and 2008). Initial financial allocations under the 1996 Farm Bill were relatively small, with $130 million in 1996 and $200 million for each year between 1997 and 2002. Following re-authorization in 2002, EQIP allocations grew significantly, reaching $1.3 billion in 2007 (Stubbs, 2010). EQIP funds are allocated to states based on a formula that includes 20 weighted factors that evaluate national resource priorities, natural resource need, performance measures, and regional equity (Stubbs, 2010). The allocation formula attempts to balance national, regional, and state priorities. Within states, a ranking process is developed that further balances national, state, and local resource concerns and USDA priorities (including supporting minority and beginning farmers). The state application ranking system is developed at the state level with local input (Federal Register, 2009; Stubbs, 2010). Along with changes to financial allocations, EQIP has changed in other important ways since its inception. Initially, EQIP was jointly administered by the NRCS and the Farm Service Agency (FSA), which has historically been involved in conservation activities through the Conservation Reserve Program (Claassen, 2003; Federal Register, 1997). NRCS was placed in charge of implementing the technical aspects of the program, including establishing application and allocation procedures for the program, while FSA was tasked with administering the financial and paperwork aspects of the program. From 2002 on, EQIP has been administered solely by NRCS. 2002 also saw increased administrative requirements laid out for NRCS, including requiring the NRCS Chief to develop a formula for fund allocation to the states and requiring NRCS to develop systems for monitoring and evaluating program performance (Federal Register, 2003). Under the 1996 Farm Bill, EQIP funds were especially directed toward targeted geographic areas within states, called priority areas. These priority areas were selected through an applicationbased process in which private groups, local government bodies, or state or federal agencies worked with a local work group to identify and nominate especially sensitive areas within the state. The NRCS national office could also designate certain geographic areas as national conservation priority area. Applicants to EQIP within these geographic priority areas received special consideration of their applications (Federal Register, 1997). Priority areas were absent from the final rules following reauthorization in 2002 and 2008 (Federal Register, 2003, 2009). While this changed the approach of geographic targeting of EQIP funds, it did not change the emphasis on local coordination; NRCS was required under the 2003 and 2009 rules to coordinate resource prioritization and other programmatic requirements with a State Technical Committee and local work groups. The local work groups are required to include certain local partners, including “representatives of local offices of FSA, the Cooperative Extension State Research, Education, and Extension Service, the conservation district, and other Federal, State, and local government agencies, including Tribes, with expertise in natural resources who advise NRCS on decisions related to EQIP implementation.” (Federal Register 2002, page 32,350). Federal conservation programs are subject to substantial federal oversight, both by the agency that directly implements them (such as NRCS), as well as the federal U.S. Department of Agriculture and Congress. Congressional control over conservation programs occurs in two key ways: passage of authorization and spending legislature, and informational assessments through Congressional hearings and audits by federal agencies. Congress has significantly changed the emphasis in federal conservation policy

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

since the 1980s, transitioning away from land retirement programs and toward working lands approaches. There has also been a significant increase in the budgets of conservation programs since EQIP’s inception in the 1990s as the federal government attempts to ameliorate environmental problems stemming from agriculture (USDA, 2011a,b). While Congress has generally signaled its support of more localized, variable programs by expanding EQIP, there has also been a trend toward justifying expenditures by demonstrating impact. EQIP and other conservation programs have undergone numerous assessments by federal agencies, including the Government Accountability Office, at Congress’ behest (Stubbs, 2010). The desire of Congress to assess impact of programs has impacted NRCS’s implementation of conservation programs, including EQIP, primarily through standardizing and nationalizing recordkeeping and certain procedures. Study frame Conservation on farmland is a concern nationwide. Within the Midwestern United States, agriculture is a dominant land use in many areas; environmental concerns emanating from agriculture are the largest facing this region of the country (Dowd et al., 2008). Agricultural runoff continues to not only degrade water quality within the Midwest but has also contributed to significant water quality problems outside of the region, most notably the hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico (Dowd et al., 2008; Rabalais et al., 2001). In this context, agricultural conservation programs are especially important in the Midwest. The research presented here focuses on the Midwest as a case study for the larger issue of EQIP implementation in differing contexts. As a voluntary, incentive-based program, EQIP and other federal conservation programs rely on farmers to seek out opportunities to participate. State differences in application rates represent differences in policy outputs; while the ultimate outcome of conservation programs is improved environmental quality, the required intermediate output is adoption of conservation practices by private actors. Farmers express their willingness to participate by applying for programs. Direct participation by farmers is limited by program funds (Stubbs, 2010), creating a difference between the number of farmers who desire to participate and those who receive program funds. The application rate more accurately reflects the willingness of farmers to participate than the actual participation rate. Investigating differences in application rates should not be seen as an evaluation of the program; rather by looking at application rates (which reflects attempted participation) it may be possible to assess the relationships between state context (including state-level NRCS implementation decisions) and the desire of farmers to participate in the program. Research has demonstrated links between a wide range of farm and social variables and participation in conservation programs, at a variety of scales. Farm structural variables such as farm size, farm income, and land tenure have all been shown to be related to program application rates, both in the U.S. and Canada (Dupont, 2010; Kraft et al., 1996; Reimer et al., 2013). Renters have been shown to be more likely to participate in working lands programs (Kraft et al., 1996) and the share of renters in a state has been positively linked with state EQIP application rates (Reimer et al., 2013). Production systems also appear to influence application patterns in working lands programs, with livestock production (Reimer et al., 2013) and vegetable crop production (Kraft et al., 1996) being positively linked with application rates. Society- and individual-level beliefs and attitudes have also been demonstrated to be linked with farmer adoption of conservation practices and program participation (Franks, 2003; Prokopy et al., 2008; Reimer et al., 2012). In addition, society-scale factors, including industry standards and a wide range of federal policies, also constrain or incentivize

607

conservation behaviors (Stuart and Gillon, 2013). The impacts of program structure and implementation on application rates however are less well understood. Given the regional, state, and local variation in environmental and resource problems and the statebased variation in EQIP implementation, these variations may have significant impacts on farmer behavior. Implementation of government programs has been demonstrated to have varying levels of success in uptake by those whom the policy is intended to impact (Hill and Hupe, 2002). Within the Midwestern U.S., application rates vary (Fig. 1). This variation offers an opportunity to investigate the impact of state EQIP implementation decisions on application rates. Further exploration is needed at the state level to explore the impact of differing resource concerns, agricultural systems, and EQIP implementation on application rates. Studying EQIP implementation in several of these states offers the ability to compare and contrast different approaches and explore the impacts of these approaches on application behavior. By identifying the ways in which EQIP varies between a few states with largely similar agricultural sectors (Table 1) in one part of the U.S., this research seeks to better understand how program implementation affects voluntary participation by farmers and rural landowners. While not intended to reflect the full range of contexts present nationally, this research on program implementation in a heavily agricultural region can reveal important themes and variations in agri-environmental policy. Materials and methods An exploratory, qualitative approach was used to investigate implementation of EQIP in a small number of states. Four states in the Midwest were selected for study: Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. These states were selected as they reflect a range of application rates (Fig. 1), as well as a range of geography, culture, and state governance. One of the important ways in which states differ is in resource prioritization and which practices to fund and promote. This study design included states with different resource contexts to explore the ways in which resource-related decisions are made and how they might influence application rates. Table 1 shows some characteristics of the agricultural sector in each state. While each state has a significant portion of the land area devoted to agriculture, Wisconsin has a much smaller area in agriculture then the other states, while Iowa and Nebraska each have over 85% of the state in agriculture. Farm size and farm revenue are also larger in the two western states. Nebraska has significantly less agricultural land in cropland, with the balance devoted to grazing systems. This is also reflected in the larger number of cattle in the state. In contrast, Indiana has significantly fewer cattle than other states and is also the only state with less than a million acres of forage crops. Nebraska is the only state of the four with significant wheat production, reflecting the drier climate of the state. Iowa also stands out from the others in the state’s hog inventory, with nearly 20 million hogs in 2007. Nebraska and Iowa have a higher percentage of high revenue farms and renter-operated acres, which would be expected to contribute to higher application rates in those states. Wisconsin has a lower percentage of acreage operated by farmers who only rent land and a lower level of renter-operated acres (though slightly higher than Indiana). Indiana and Wisconsin however have a higher proportion of impaired waters and Wisconsin has the highest percentage of agricultural value from livestock, factors that were found to be positively correlated with application rates. The state measures of these factors represent somewhat confounding effects on application rates; where Nebraska might be expected to have higher application rates based on farm sales or renter acreage, the state ranks low on other related factors like percentage of impaired waters.

608

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

Fig. 1. 2007 EQIP application rates in U.S. Midwest. Application rates represent the percentage of farmers (from USDA records) applying for the program in 2007.

Initial exploratory interviews were conducted with a small number of key informants, including both current and former NRCS employees. A total of four open-ended interviews (one in each state) were conducted in fall 2009 with the EQIP program officer in each state to gain a perspective on the program statewide. Interview guides were created based on information collected from these initial interviews. Interviews were then conducted over the phone with a total of 22 District Conservationists (DCs) in the four states between November 2011 and January 2012 (five interviews in Nebraska and Wisconsin, six in Indiana and Iowa). In most cases, DCs were selected with input from the state NRCS office in each state; we requested DCs who represented a range of geographic, social, and environmental contexts within the state. Each interviewee was contacted initially by email and asked to participate in a phone interview. Phone interviews were conducted following a positive response to the initial email. A total of 24 DCs were contacted (six in each of the states), two of whom did not respond to the initial email. No additional attempts to contact these two individuals were made; in each state data saturation was achieved with the number of interviews conducted (4 state program officers and 22 DCS, 26 interviews in total). Data saturation refers to the

point at which no new themes or insights are being generated by subsequent interviews (Corbin and Strauss, 2008). The interviews followed a set protocol, covering a range of topics. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Following transcription, the interview data were analyzed qualitatively using QSR NVivo 9.0 software. The analysis followed a thematic coding approach in which interviews were initially coded by general topic (e.g. resource concerns, partnerships, etc.); these topics were then explored for emergent themes, from which codes were developed (for example direct outreach to farmers). The interview responses were then categorized into thematic codes based on their most applicable theme (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Interviews focused on understanding how EQIP functioned at the county level, including how national and state processes impacted decisions locally. The interviews followed a semi-structured format, ensuring that basic topics in the EQIP implementation process were covered but allowing participants to explore topics and give responses in their own words. The basic topics explored were: the application process, application ranking process, local resource priorities, local practice priorities, partnerships, and motivations for farmer participation.

Table 1 Selected agricultural characteristics of study states. State

Indiana

Iowa

Nebraska

Wisconsin

Percentage high sales (>$100,000/year) Percentage of acreage operated by renters Percentage of total agricultural value from livestock Percentage of state waters listed as impaired1

20.8% 8.9% 35.7% 31.1%

35.6% 11.7% 49.3% 9.1%

41.0% 9.6% 55.9% 5.5%

21.2% 4.0% 70.2% 10.8%

Total farm acreage Percentage of state in agriculture Total cropland acreage Percentage of agriculture devoted to cropland Average farm size (acres) Average market value of agricultural products per farm Major crops (more than 1 million acres cultivated) Cattle (inventory) Hogs (inventory)

14,773,184 63.4% 12,716,037 86.1% 242 $ 135,733 Corn, soybeans 875,350 3,669,057

30,747,550 86.0% 26,316,332 85.6% 331 $ 219,890 Corn, soybeans, forage 3,982,344 19,295,092

45,480,358 91.9% 21,486,025 47.2% 953 $ 324,992 Corn, soybeans, wheat, forage 6,576,950 3,268,544

15,190,804 36.2% 10,116,279 66.6% 194 $ 114,288 Corn, soybeans, forage 3,373,923 436,814

Source: 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture (USDA, 2009). * All numbers represent 2007 data. 1 USDA (2009).

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

Fig. 2. EQIP implementation elements at national, state, and local levels, showing the impact of top-down decisions on ultimate program outputs, including outreach strategies and local partnerships.

Results EQIP implementation processes and program outputs The EQIP policy elements revealed by the interviews fall into two categories: implementation processes and program outputs (Fig. 2). Implementation processes are administrative rulemaking procedures that determine program outputs, which are administrative rules and procedures that guide delivery of program elements on the ground. Implementation processes occur at multiple levels, including national, state, and local. Program outputs can also be derived at any level, but ultimately administrative decisions at all stages are reflected in the output at the local level. This local level reflects the ultimate arena of service delivery and is the point at which potential participants (farmers) interact with the program. Program outputs include the application procedure for farmers, the ranking procedure for applications (which includes the resource concerns and conservation practices that are emphasized locally), partnerships, and outreach efforts (Fig. 3). The following results are based primarily on interviews with state program officers, who placed the state implementation of EQIP within a national context. Program officers indicated that there are aspects of the program related to national processes that do not vary from state to state. Specific outputs, including many aspects of the application process, ranking process, and partnerships are determined during this a national-level rulemaking process that occurs approximately every five years when a new Farm Bill is written. The initial federal rules for the program lay out how the application process will work, what basic components will comprise the ranking process, and how state offices will go about creating formal partnerships. Other national processes are ongoing during the period of program authorization; NRCS revises rules concerning application and ranking procedures annually, including modifying funding pools and establishing new national resource priorities. The top-down, federal processes of the program constrain some aspects of state and local decision making. These federal processes however are designed (both by Congress and federal rulemaking) to allow for flexibility in specific outputs and allow states and local districts to design outputs that are locally relevant. Similarities in state and local implementation processes and program outputs Midwestern state NRCS offices exhibited many similarities in process while often arriving at different program outputs.

609

Interview participants indicated that state implementation processes are typically conducted annually and include review of EQIP funding pools within the state, state-level resource priorities, lists of approved practices within the state, and ongoing relations with state-level partner groups. All four states indicated that these processes typically have not resulted in substantial changes to outputs from year to year. Farmers who are interested in participating in the program work with NRCS locally to establish an application. While EQIP has a continuous signup – farmers can apply at any time during the year – states typically establish a deadline for initial ranking of applications based on national NRCS financial allocations and state needs. Specific application procedures include paperwork requirements to determine eligibility for EQIP, a farm resource planning process that typically involves NRCS or partner organization resource staff performing a site visit, and contract application paperwork. These procedures were all largely determined at the national level and did not appear to vary significantly between states. State program officers and DCs were asked to discuss how contracts were ranked. Each application receives a certain number of ranking points based on how well the proposed project addresses resource concerns. Applications are then ranked based on how many points they receive. Funding is allocated to applications on the ranking list until all funds are allocated. Ranking questions reflect national, state, and local resource concerns, as well as programmatic considerations, such as whether the applicant has successfully completed a previous EQIP contract. EQIP applications are ranked in a number of funding pools within a state; these funding pools represent different land use, farm operation, and farm operator types and geographic region. As these funding pools are largely determined at the national level, they were basically the same across the four study states. The geographic pools, known as common resource areas were based on simple quadrants of each state (i.e. northwest, southeast, etc.). Interviewees indicated that state and local processes for determining ranking procedures were largely similar. National, state, and local ranking questions are reviewed and modified annually in an ongoing process that heavily involves local partners. State resource questions are determined by NRCS in conjunction with the State Technical Committee. The exact makeup of the State Technical Committee varies from state to state, but reflects the same essential resource partners. Federal rules require that these committees include representatives from the state department of natural resources, state department of agriculture, the FSA, producer groups and other farm sector representatives, and private conservation organizations. Each local district within a state works with partner organizations and individuals to identify local resource concerns in an organization known as a local work group, similar to the State Technical Committee. National and state level ranking questions help to direct application ranking to provide some continuity across the state. Local questions then direct the program to address specific resource issues that may vary within the state. DCs in all states expressed their support of the local flexibility of the program, citing this as the main strength of the program. While the specific program outputs (other than application procedures) are designed to be different between local districts, the processes through which these outputs are determined are largely the same across states and within states. Differences in program outputs State resource concerns Interview subjects stated that the ability to craft the EQIP program to address local concerns is a reflection of differing resource needs/concerns both between states and within states. Both state program officers and DCs were asked about resource concerns in

610

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

Fig. 3. This figure shows how EQIP processes and outputs relate to the ultimate outputs and goals of agri-environmental policy. Federal, state, and local procedures lead to program rules and on-the-ground strategies, which in turn influence farmer participation in the program and ultimately environmental quality. Adapted from Hill and Hupe (2002).

their state and area. At a national level, soil quality, soil erosion, and water quality remain the highest concerns, and each state reflected those concerns as well. The emphasis on soil and water concerns varies at the local level. Every DC interviewed expressed some level of soil and water resource concerns, but in some locations other resources were more immediately important. Areas with more livestock agriculture, both confinement- and pasture-based systems, expressed more concern for pasture and animal waste issues. Each state has at least one district with more livestock-related concerns, but these issues are more prevalent in Wisconsin (with its large dairy sector), Nebraska, and southern Iowa. Western Nebraska expressed concerns with water quantity, a concern not historically relevant to much of the Midwest according to DCs in Indiana, Iowa, and Wisconsin. Locally throughout the study region wildlife habitat, invasive species, and forestry are also important concerns. How states and districts choose to address the various resource concerns also differs in these study states. DCs and state program officers were asked what types of conservation practices were commonly funded in their state or area. Program officers indicated that practices varied across the state depending on local resource concerns. Conservation practices also came up in questions about resource priorities and ranking procedures. Practice emphasis functions as an implementation output in two ways: as a component of the ranking procedure and as a component of the outreach conducted. For example, Indiana districts focus on an integrated system of practices to address soil and water concerns, emphasizing conservation tillage, cover crops, nutrient management, and pest management. Southern Iowa and Nebraska have areas with higher slopes than much of the study region, leading to more immediate concern with ephemeral gully erosion. In these locations there is heavy demand for structural practices like terraces. Several DCs in these states stated that an overwhelming proportion of their EQIP contracts are for terrace projects. In other locations with high-slope land throughout the four states, there was a more multi-practice focus, including grassed waterways, grade stabilization structures, and water and sediment control basins. Practice emphasis in each district reflects an additional level of flexibility in the EQIP program. Districts are able to work with local producers to identify the primary resource concerns and adjust which practices to emphasize based on both the nature of the resource concern and the needs of producers in that district. DCs expressed that approaches that work in one state or district may not work in another. The cover crop practice (planting additional crops between primary rotations for seasonal cover and other conservation benefits) offers a prime example of the differences in state processes for determining which practices to emphasize. This practice was emphasized to different extents in different states. Indiana and Iowa appeared to have more emphasis on the practice at the state level, while the practice was not mentioned by anyone in Nebraska. Wisconsin had some local emphasis on cover crops, primarily in the northern part of the state. Indiana and Iowa’s state program officers

both mentioned cover crops among the major practices within their states, while the practice was not mentioned by their counterparts in either Wisconsin or Nebraska. In Wisconsin, it seemed that the cover crop practice emphasis was based on local needs; two DCs mentioned that cover crops were locally popular, particularly when paired with tree plantings. Partnerships and outreach In addition to application and ranking procedures, interview participants indicated that states and local districts also have other program outputs that influence service delivery: partnerships and outreach. These outputs influence how farmers are made aware of EQIP, how the program is promoted, and how services are delivered at the local level. Interview participants indicated that in the Midwest, NRCS works actively with a number of partner organizations to implement EQIP and the other conservation programs the agency administers. Program officers indicated that this reliance on partnerships is a key approach nationwide. The premier partnership in each of the study states is with the local conservation districts, variously known as Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs, Iowa and Indiana), Land Conservation Departments (LCDs, Wisconsin), and Natural Resource Districts (NRDs, Nebraska). Conservation districts vary in their financial, personnel, and technical capacity, both between states and within states. Nebraska and Iowa have more substantial districts than the other two states, both in terms of resources and staffing. The LCDs in Wisconsin and SWCDs in Indiana still work actively with NRCS in most districts, albeit with more limited resources. Every DC indicated that NRCS and the conservation districts coordinate to some degree, and in most districts they expressed that the relationship was very close. Outreach efforts varied between the districts interviewed more than they varied between states. Nearly all districts utilize media advertising to promote programs and inform farmers about application ranking deadlines, including: the use of news releases for local newspapers and radio; inclusion of information in newsletters, particularly newsletters published by other organizations like the FSA or the local conservation district; and in some cases the use of websites, typically the websites maintained by the conservation district partner. More direct contact strategies are not as widely utilized by study participants. There was limited use of field events in most locations. The exception to this trend was Indiana, where most districts indicated that field demonstration events had been held to promote the use of cover crops, part of a state-level initiative to raise awareness of this practice state-wide. At these events, NRCS staff and their conservation partners promoted the availability of EQIP funds along with technical details of practice adoption. Media advertising was primarily used to promote these events. Direct mailings to farmers were another direct contact strategy that was used in some districts. These direct mailings typically involved sending a postcard or information sheet detailing program availability and/or particular individual conservation practices. Direct

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

mailings were used by districts in every state, but were not widely used anywhere. Typically DCs were utilizing direct mailings when they had identified either a geographic area or particular operator/owner type that had been under-utilizing NRCS programs. In these cases, DCs had identified a need to specifically target certain individuals and stated that a direct mailing campaign was the best strategy to raise awareness of programs. Several DCs described outreach efforts as “passive recruitment” of farmers into conservation programs. Districts typically rely on media advertising strategies that raise awareness of program availability among the general farm population without specifically targeting individual farmers. DCs in every state indicated that “word of mouth” advertising was among the most important strategies that NRCS has relied on in recent years. A few DCs stated that they had done more active advertising of EQIP when the program was new but that this level of effort was no longer needed. DCs described the EQIP program in particular as being firmly established in their area; in most cases the EQIP program has been operating long enough that awareness of the program among the farm community is believed to be generally high (but see Reimer and Prokopy, 2014 for contrary evidence from the farmers’ perspective in Indiana). In the cases where information deficiencies were identified, DCs could use strategies (such as direct mailings) to raise awareness among particular groups of operators or owners. In most cases, though, awareness was perceived to be high enough that district staff did not feel it necessary to conduct more substantial outreach. Several DCs indicated that the “walk-in business” was more than enough to fulfill program allocation needs. The use of “word of mouth” promotion indicates NRCS reliance upon existing farmer networks to recruit farmers into programs like EQIP. Another outreach strategy utilized by NRCS staff was giving presentations at community organizations. DCs in a number of districts indicate that they meet with farm commodity groups, farm services providers (seed and fertilizer dealers), landowner groups (such as women’s landowners organizations), and civic organizations (such as Kiwanis or Lions Club) to promote programs or conservation practices. These types of interactions were useful outreach strategies according to many DCs, both as a means of utilizing existing networks to gain trust and reliability as well as being an efficient use of staff time. The benefit of staff efficiency in hosting group events appeared to be particularly important to many DCs. District Conservationists indicated that time is a particular concern at the district level. Program paperwork requirements and decreasing staff (of both NRCS and conservation districts) result in less time available for more intense outreach methods. Several DCs who have been in their position for several decades indicated that they used to spend more time going out to contact farmers directly but that over the past decade this is no longer possible due to other constraints on their time. These DCs generally lamented this trend, indicating that they enjoyed those interactions. They also indicated that they felt they were more effective at promoting conservation activities when they had longer one-on-one contacts, particularly when these interactions occurred in the field. Nearly every DC interviewed indicated that they do interact one-on-one with farmers but that these interactions are almost always farmer initiated and in an office setting. These interactions in many cases lead to EQIP applications or applications to other conservation programs (including both NRCS and state/local programs) so they can be as effective as NRCS-initiated contacts but they require knowledge and willingness on the part of the farmer to initiate the process. Conservationist perspectives on farmer motives Lastly program officers and DCs were asked to offer their opinions about what motivates farmers to participate in EQIP. Many DCs interviewed have worked in their area for years (the average length of time in their current position was 13 years) and can offer

611

extensive experience with farmers and conservation programs. The most common response by participants pertained to environmental motivations or a conservation ethic in the area. DCs in areas with high application rates often pointed to a strong conservation ethic locally as the reason for the high rates. The emphasis on conservation motives did not follow state lines; a number of DCs in Wisconsin and Indiana (with lower state application rates) pointed to a conservation orientation among farmers who participated. One DC also stated that the strong conservation ethic locally served to put pressure on farmers to engage in conservation activities, whether the individual farmer felt a strong environmental motive or not. In this sense, this DC was pointing to social pressure as a motive for program participation. A few DCs offered a different opinion about the primary motivation for participation, stating that the financial benefits of participation were the major motive. These DCs particularly emphasized that EQIP offered assistance for farmers to experiment with practices that they wanted to try on their land. Farmers might be interested in exploring a practice like conservation tillage or cover crops but were unsure of the financial benefits or costs. To the DCs offering this opinion, EQIP served to lower the financial barrier to trying these practices. These DCs emphasized that while the motivation for participation might be the financial or technical assistance, farmers were otherwise interested in conservation practices for their operational and environmental benefits. In this sense the financial and environmental motivations are perhaps related. Impact of differing program outputs on application rates Implementation processes and program outputs ultimately contribute to the desired policy outcomes of EQIP. The desired policy output for this conservation program is applicants with considerable natural resource problems that allow NRCS procedures to optimize the environmental benefits of program expenditures. The similarities in application and ranking procedures across states indicate that these are likely not causes of differing application rates between states. Differences in ranking procedures between states and districts mainly impact how funding is allocated (which applications receive funding) and DCs gave no indication that ranking procedures affect application decisions by farmers. Based on these interviews, there is some indication that the nature of the resource concerns in a given area may influence application patterns. DCs expressed differences in how many applications they receive annually as well as how many applications receive funding. Some districts are able to fund all of their applications annually and a few districts discussed a decline in application rates in recent years. DCs explained that higher crop prices in recent years have reduced the demand for conservation practices (or increased the relative costs of practices), particularly structural practices that remove land from production. For the most part however districts are unable to fund all applications on a yearly basis, with some districts having more than 50% turnover (applications that went unfunded in one year that are re-submitted the next year) in applications. The number of unfunded applications depends on two factors: the number of applications and the average cost of each application. Structural erosion control practices, animal waste facilities, and irrigation projects tend to have higher costs. Districts where these practices are emphasized tend to have larger numbers of unfunded applications according to DCs, as they are only able to fund a small number of these high-cost applications. In addition to high-cost contracts, some districts appear to garner more interest from producers. This is particularly evident in districts with more on-farm concerns, such as pasture, soil erosion, and water quantity. Practices like pasture improvements, water conservation, and erosion control structures address not only environmental concerns but also farm operation concerns. Farmers also address off-farm

612

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

environmental concerns (especially water quality) and on-farm concerns that do not directly benefit the farm operation (such as wildlife habitat) but practices with operational benefits appear to be more salient and popular among farmers. This corresponds with other research investigating farmer conservation decision making (e.g. Reimer et al., 2012).

Discussion NRCS national rules lay the framework through which state and local EQIP implementation decisions are made and constrain those decisions to some extent. Implementation processes, particularly concerning how ranking procedures are developed, are guided heavily by national-level processes, leading to little variation in many aspects of the application and ranking procedures. In contrast, variation in some other program outputs is a designed element of EQIP. The ultimate objective of national-level implementation processes appears to be to create uniform program procedures across the country while simultaneously allowing the program to be locally relevant. This reflects the trend toward more federal accountability of programs, especially by Congress. Interview participants, especially state program officers, emphasized the need for clear record keeping and assessment of impacts as a federal goal. Program outputs that reflect local resource needs, especially resource concerns and primary conservation practice focus, are influenced more by state and local processes than national ones. This reflects another trend toward decentralization of some aspects of conservation programs, especially driven by complexity and diversity in environmental and agricultural contexts. These two countering trends, toward both more federal accountability and more local control, are likely to continue in tension with each other as Congress attempts to target federal expenditures to the most impactful programs. It is not entirely clear from these interviews whether there is an impact of state implementation decisions on EQIP application rates. Among the four states studied, Nebraska and Iowa tend to have higher application rates than Indiana and Wisconsin (Fig. 1). Nebraska and Iowa also have local districts with more programming capacity and more robust state and local conservation funding. These may have a positive impact on farmer application rates. Contact and interaction with conservation professionals has been shown positively impact farmer practice adoption and participation in conservation programs, both in the U.S. (Kraft et al., 1996) and internationally (Moon and Cocklin, 2011). In Australia, farmers and private landowners expressed interest in conservation programs that emphasize locally-led approaches, training, and education (Cocklin et al., 2007). Social networks are an important factor in both spreading information about conservation efforts and encouraging participation (Floress et al., 2011; Morris, 2004). Local and grassroots efforts to engage private landowners in conservation efforts have been heavily utilized in recent years, in the hope that these locally-based approaches decrease social barriers to participation (Morton and Weng, 2009; Weber, 2003). While grassroots efforts may be effective at increasing program participation, local capacity is outside of NRCS control and does not appear to directly reflect any decisions made by NRCS in these states. Differences in the nature of conservation concerns may also influence application rates. States and areas within states with more on-farm problems may lead to more farmer concern for environmental quality, which is then reflected in higher program application rates, but this has also not been empirically explored in this study. Another possible contributor to differing application rates may be differences in the types of farm operations within these states. Some DCs in Wisconsin and Indiana, the states with the lowest application rates, indicated that their districts have large

numbers of small farmers. Small farms have been shown to have lower participation rates in conservation programs in other studies (Franks, 2003; Kraft et al., 1996; Lambert et al., 2007). Variation in application rates may reflect the setting in which programs operate more than any programmatic decisions made by different states. Many DCs pointed to environmental motivations for participation, while some others stated that EQIP offered incentives to experiment with practices that the farmer might otherwise not try. A number of DCs pointed to a strong conservation ethic locally that contributed to high interest in the program among farmers. Research has linked social factors, including farmer beliefs and values as well as social norms, with conservation behavior (Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2008). A large number of studies have found that stewardship motives are an important predictor of BMP adoption and other conservation behavior, such as adoption of organic agriculture (Duram, 1999; Fairweather and Campbell, 2003; Greiner and Gregg, 2011; McCann et al., 1997; Prager and Posthumus, 2010; Reimer et al., 2012). More specific to the findings of this research, environmental motives have been linked with program participation in a variety of contexts, including forest conservation (Erickson et al., 2002), easement programs (Farmer et al., 2011; Kabii and Horwitz, 2006), and incentive-based conservation programs (Moon and Cocklin, 2011; Morris and Potter, 1995; Olenick et al., 2005). Geographic variation in farmer environmental motives has not been substantially investigated in the U.S. It is possible that underlying differences in local environmental opinions between states lead to differing application rates. More thorough exploration of motivations to participate from the farmer’s perspective is needed, particularly how they vary spatially. The example of EQIP reflects a type of federal policy implementation that has not been investigated extensively, particularly in the context of environmental policy. The Conservation Reserve Program reflects an older model of implementation, in which program outputs are determined primarily at the national level and exhibit little local variation (Konyar and Osborn, 1990). Recognizing that environmental problems related to agriculture vary widely across the country, newer programs like EQIP focus on providing farmers across the country equal opportunities for conservation even as the nature of that conservation differs. The top-down direction of implementation processes allows for some federal control over program implementation to be maintained. This form of policy implementation may be somewhat unique in federal environmental policy due to the nature of the programs and the policy problems they are addressing. While other federal agencies, such as the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, administer federal policy at the local level, the policies they are implementing deal primarily with management of public lands and natural resources. Agricultural conservation policies like EQIP rely on the voluntary participation of private individuals, requiring different considerations for successful implementation. Local implementation of EQIP offers opportunities for engagement between agency personnel, individuals, and community organizations. These local engagement structures are potentially powerful mechanisms for incorporating local knowledge, building local autonomy, and encouraging participation by individuals (Weber, 2003). It should be noted that the findings presented here are based on a relatively small number of interviews in only four states. While many processes and outputs are statutorily or nationally determined, there are a number of areas in which EQIP can vary between states or regions. There is certainly reason to believe that there will be less variation within one region (in this case the Midwest) than between regions. EQIP may be implemented very differently in California, Florida, or Maine than it is in the Midwest. In addition, a small number of DCs were selected for interviews in each of the study states. While we attempted to find DCs reflecting a range

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

of agricultural and environmental contexts within the state, there may be variations across the region that this exploratory approach did not find. The findings presented here are not entirely generalizable across the Midwest or between regions, but the key themes of this research offer a previously unexplored look at conservation program implementation. In particular, the level of variation in program outputs within and between states offer important lessons for research on conservation in agricultural landscapes. The differences in EQIP program outputs at the local level reflect differences in the policy context in which farmers make conservation decisions. Rather than a ubiquitous program providing the same conservation opportunities to farmers regardless of context, EQIP (and possibly other NRCS conservation programs as well) offers varying opportunities to farmers in different settings. Future research exploring farmer conservation decision-making should take into account these differences. Rather than simply acknowledging that programs are available, researchers should be careful to explore what program outputs those programs offer locally. States and sub-state districts in a number of important ways, including the resource concerns and conservation practices that districts focus on, the form and capacity of partnerships, and the outreach strategies used to reach farmers. Future research is needed to explore the exact impacts of these differences on farmer willingness to participate, particularly what role partnerships and local networks play in farmer knowledge and acceptability. In addition, further research is needed into farmer motivations to participate in programs. Federal agri-environmental programs differ from many other environmental policies: they are largely not devolved to states under the system of federalism. The federal agency implementation of policies such as EQIP offers some measure of consistency in policy context between states. EQIP however is not implemented identically in all states (by design). As Congress and federal agencies continue to recognize the importance of local context, federal policies may increasingly use processes and mechanisms similar to EQIP to adjust policies to meet local conditions. Further study is needed of these context-moderated top-down policy approaches, and their impacts on individual and community behavior. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the NRCS directors in the case study states for authorizing our research, as well as all of the interviewees for participating. In addition, we would like to thank Drs. Otto Doering, Leigh Raymond, and Benjamin Gramig of Purdue University for providing feedback on drafts of this article. References Batie, S.S., 2009. Green payments and the US Farm Bill: information and policy changes. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7 (7), 380–388. Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best management practices in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Management 96 (1), 17–25. Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77–101. Claassen, R., Hansen, L., Peters, M., Breneman, V., Weinberg, M., Cattaneo, A., Feather, P., Gadsby, D., Hellerstein, D., Hopkins, J., Johnston, P., Morehart, M., Smith, M., 2001. Agri-environmental policy at the crossroads: guideposts on a changing landscape. Agricultural Economic Report Number 1 (5), 794. Claassen, R., 2003. Emphasis Shifts in U.S. Agri-environmental Policy. Amber Waves, USDA Economic Research Service. Cocklin, C., Mautner, N., Dibden, J., 2007. Public policy, private landowners: perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management,. Journal of Environmental Management 85, 986–998. Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 2008. Basics of Qualitative Research, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Crotty, P.M., 1987. The New Federalism game: primacy implementation of environmental policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17, 53–67. Dowd, B.M., Press, D., Los Huertos, M., 2008. Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: the case of California’s central coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 128, 151–161.

613

Dupont, D.P., 2010. Cost-sharing incentive programs for source water protection: the Grand River’s Rural Water Quality Program. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 58 (4), 481–496. Duram, L., 1999. Factors in organic farmers’ decision making: diversity, challenge, and obstacles. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 14, 2–10. Erickson, D.L., Ryan, R.L., De Young, R., 2002. Woodlots in the rural landscape: landowner motivations and management attitudes in a Michigan (USA) case study. Landscape and Urban Planning 58, 101–112. Fairweather, J.R., Campbell, H.R., 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: contrasting pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 20, 287–300. Farmer, J.R., Chancellor, C., Fischer, B.C., 2011. Motivations for using conservation easements as a land protection mechanism: a mixed methods analysis. Natural Areas Journal 31 (1), 80–87. Federal Register, 1997. Environmental quality incentives program: final rule. Federal Register 62 (99), 28258–28292. Federal Register, 2003. Environmental quality incentives program: final rule. Federal Register 68 (104), 32337–32355. Federal Register, 2009. Environmental quality incentives program: interim final rule with request for comment. Federal Register 74 (10), 2293–2317. Floress, K., Prokopy, L.S., Allred, S.B., 2011. It’s who you know: social capital, social networks, and watershed groups. Society and Natural Resources 24 (9), 871–886. Franks, J., 2003. Revised agri-environment policy objectives: implications for scheme design. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 46 (3), 443–466. Greiner, R., Gregg, D., 2011. Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28, 257–265. Hill, M., Hupe, P., 2002. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. Sage Publications, London. Hoornbeek, J.A., 2011. Water Pollution Policies and the American States: Runaway Bureaucracies or Congressional Control? State University of New York Press, Albany. Kabii, T., Horwitz, P., 2006. A review of landholder motivations and determinants for participation in conservation covenanting programmes. Environmental Conservation 33 (1), 11–20. Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25–48. Konisky, D.M., Woods, N.D., 2012. Measuring state environmental policy. Review of Policy Research 29 (4), 544–569. Konyar, K., Osborn, C.T., 1990. A nation-level economic analysis of Conservation Reserve Program participation: a discrete choice approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics Research 42 (2), 5–12. Kraft, S.E., Lant, C., Gillman, K., 1996. WQIP: an assessment of its chances for acceptance by farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51 (6), 494–498. Lambert, D.M., Sullivan, P., Claassen, R., Foreman, L., 2007. Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 24, 72–88. McCann, E., Sullivan, S., Erickson, D., De, R., Young, 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: a comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21 (5), 747–758. Moon, K., Cocklin, C., 2011. Participation in biodiversity conservation: motivations and barriers of Australian landholders. Journal of Rural Studies 27, 331–342. Morris, C., 2004. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21 (2), 177–191. Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (1), 51–63. Morton, L.W., Weng, C.Y., 2009. Getting to better water quality outcomes: the promise and challenge of the citizen effect. Agriculture and Human Values 26, 83–94. Olenick, K.L., Kreuter, U.P., Conner, J.R., 2005. Texas landowner perceptions regarding ecosystem services and cost-sharing land management programs. Ecological Economics 53, 247–260. Peters, B.G., Hoornbeek, J.A., 2005. The problem of policy problems. In: Eliadis, P., Hill, M.M., Howlett, M. (Eds.), Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance. McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal. Prager, K., Posthumus, H., 2010. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ adoption of conservation practices in Europe. In: Napier, T.L. (Ed.), Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation. Nova Science Publications Inc., New York. Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., Weinkauf, D.K., Baumgart-Getz, A., 2008. Determinants of agricultural BMP adoption: evidence from the literature. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63 (5), 300–311. Rabalais, N.N., Turner, R.E., Wiseman, W.J., 2001. Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Environmental Quality 30, 320–329. Reimer, A.P., Weinkauf, D.K., Prokopy, L.S., 2012. The influence of perceptions of practice characteristics: an examination of agricultural best management practice adoption in two Indiana watersheds. Journal of Rural Studies 28 (1), 118–128. Reimer, A.P., Gramig, B.M., Prokopy, L.S., 2013. Farmers and conservation programs: explaining differences in Environmental Quality Incentives Program applications between states. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68 (2), 110–119. Reimer, A., Prokopy, L.S., 2014. Farmer participation in U.S. Farm Bill conservation programs. Environmental Management 53, 318–332. Ribaudo, M., 2012. Working-lands conservation programs. In: Osteen, C., Gottlieb, J., Vasavada, U. (Eds.), Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators 2012

614

A. Reimer, L. Prokopy / Land Use Policy 38 (2014) 605–614

Edition. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin 98. Sabatier, P.A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matlock, M., 2005. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. In: Sabatier, P.A. (Ed.), Swimming Upstream: Collaborative Approaches to Watershed Management. MIT Press, Cambridge. Schaible, G.D., Aillery, M.P., 2012. U.S. irrigated agriculture: water management and conservation. In: Osteen, C., Gottlieb, J., Vasavada, U. (Eds.), Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin 98. Scheberle, D., 2005. The evolving matrix of environmental federalism and intergovernmental relationships. Publius 35 (1), 69–86. Schertz, L.P., Doering III, O.C., 1999. The Making of the 1996 Farm Act. Iowa State University Press, Ames. Stuart, D., Gillon, S., 2013. Scaling up to address new challenges to conservation on US farmland. Land Use Policy 31, 223–236.

Stubbs, M., 2010. Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): Status and Issues. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress., pp. 7–5700. USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2009. 2007 U.S. Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data, Vol. 1, Part 51, http://www.agcensus. usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full Report/usv1.pdf (accessed March 2010). USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2011a. Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan, www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY12budsum.pdf (accessed October 2011). USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2011b. Water Quality Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Loads Information, http://www.epa.gov/ waters/ir/index.html (accessed February 2011). Weber, E.P., 2003. Bringing Society Back In: Grassroots Ecosystem Management, Accountability and Sustainable Communities. MIT Press, Cambridge. Woods, N.D., 2006. Primacy implementation of environmental policy in the U.S. states. Publius 36 (2), 259–276.