House and Senate farm bill proposals would reduce Environmental Quality Incentives Program funding by more than $1 billion and $1.9 billion, respectively, according to an October 22 analysis by University of Illinois researcher Jonathan Coppess. He says those proposed cuts would compound earlier changes that reduced projected near-term conservation assistance for farmers.
The distinction is between money promised over many years and assistance available sooner. Coppess describes the 2025 reconciliation law as moving conservation funding into later budget years. The House and Senate proposals he reviewed would go further: If enacted, they would remove additional near-term funding rather than replace it with increases later.
Those are proposed reductions, not enacted changes in the October 22 analysis. They also concern EQIP within a broader conservation funding picture. Coppess compares spending projections for EQIP, the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program, rather than treating every conservation program as one account.
More authority later, less spending sooner
According to Coppess, the 2025 law rescinded remaining Inflation Reduction Act conservation funds and used most of that money to increase budget authority for EQIP, CSP and ACEP. Much of the added authority became available only in later years of the Congressional Budget Office’s 10-year projection. That timing matters separately from the long-term total.
Coppess reports that CBO projected $7.9 billion less in conservation spending for fiscal years 2025 through 2030, followed by increases in later years through fiscal 2034. Across the full 10-year projection, he puts the reduction at roughly $2 billion compared with the funding that would have been available under the Inflation Reduction Act.
The difference is visible in the nearer-term comparison. Coppess cites a February 2026 CBO projection of $4.7 billion in fiscal 2027 spending for the four conservation programs, down from $6.8 billion projected for that year in the 2025 baseline before the reconciliation changes. These are spending estimates, not totals already paid to producers.
A contract commitment is not a payment
USDA’s Economic Research Service explains why a funding figure does not necessarily describe a check reaching a farm. Its March 2026 report defines funding broadly enough to include appropriations, allocations, obligations, payments, budgets and estimates. Those terms describe different stages, and a dollar figure at one stage cannot automatically be read as money paid out.
An obligation is the government’s legally binding commitment to pay. For conservation programs, USDA says that commitment occurs when a producer signs a contract. Payment can follow immediately or later. USDA defines a payment as money from previously obligated funds paid after a practice is implemented, or, in some cases, before implementation.
That distinction also applies to annual spending comparisons. Coppess says conservation spending depends on Natural Resources Conservation Service contracting during the fiscal year and on contracts from earlier years. In his analysis, the final amount spent for fiscal 2027 will not be known until well after that fiscal year ends.
Historical demand exceeded available assistance
Older application figures show why the amount available for contracts matters. In a September 2023 analysis of USDA data, Coppess found that NRCS received an average of 73,730 valid EQIP applications annually from 2017 through 2022. An average of 36,620 were funded, while 37,110 valid applications went unfunded each year.
That left about 49 percent of valid applications unfunded during those years. The percentage applies to valid applications, not all applications submitted. Coppess excluded applications that were neither funded nor considered valid from that comparison. The figures describe historical national demand, not the number of farmers waiting for assistance today.
The two analyses address different parts of the same funding question: how much assistance Congress makes available, when it becomes available and how far it reaches among applicants. In Coppess’s October 22 assessment, the pending EQIP reductions would add to the near-term spending decline already projected under the 2025 law, if Congress enacts them.
