Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) in California
The state-level CSP data only includes practices that had more than four contracts in a state for a particular year. Because of this, the data contained within the state pages will not sum up to the total payments by practice on the national page.
CSP payments by fiscal year in California
CSP payments by county, 2017-2022
Practices and enhancements on CSP acres, 2017-2022, California
| Rank | Practice | Payments, 2017-2022 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cropland Annual Payment | $7,273,367 |
| 2 | Rangeland Annual Payment | $7,210,438 |
| 3 | Pasture Annual Payment | $2,156,823 |
| 4 | Existing Activity Payment-Land Use | $1,695,910 |
| 5 | Existing Activity Payment-Resource Concern | $792,584 |
| 6 | Non-Industrial Private Forest Land Annual Payment | $357,107 |
| 7 | Improved grazing management through monitoring activities  | $194,353 |
| 8 | Range Bundle#2 | $160,120 |
| 9 | Herbaceous weed treatment to create plant communities consistent with the ecological site  | $131,080 |
| 10 | Management Intensive Rotational Grazing | $121,995 |
| 11 | Pastured Cropland Annual Payment | $107,309 |
| 12 | Use of body condition scoring for livestock on a monthly basis to keep track of herd health | $91,501 |
| 13 | Farmstead | $80,715 |
| 14 | Associated Ag Land | $70,048 |
| 15 | Improving nutrient uptake efficiency and reducing risk of nutrient losses to surface water | $59,869 |
| 16 | Prescribed Grazing | $57,891 |
| 17 | Improving nutrient uptake efficiency and reducing risk of nutrient losses | $39,015 |
| 18 | Reduce risk of pesticides in surface water by utilizing IPM PAMS techniques | $36,004 |
| 19 | Upland Wildlife Habitat Management | $35,872 |
| 20 | Reduce risk of pesticides in water and air by utilizing IPM PAMS techniques | $32,833 |
| 21 | Advanced Automated IWM - Year 2-5- Soil moisture is monitored- recorded and used in decision making | $25,590 |
| 22 | Enhance development of the forest understory to improve site moisture | $19,405 |
| 23 | Prescribed grazing that improves or maintains riparian and watershed function-erosion | $17,693 |
| 24 | Minimum Payment Adjustment | $13,818 |
| 25 | Reduce ozone precursor emissions related to pesticides by utilizing IPM PAMS techniques | $13,514 |
| 26 | Maintaining and improving forest soil quality | $9,018 |
| 27 | Harvest of crops (hay or small grains) using measures that allow desired species to flush or escape | $6,211 |
| 28 | Installing electrical fence offsets and wire for cross-fencing to improve grazing management | $5,786 |
| 29 | Irrigation Water Management | $4,333 |
| 30 | Conservation cover to provide food habitat for pollinators and beneficial insects | $2,892 |
| 31 | Reduce forest density and manage understory along roads to limit wildfire risk | $1,933 |
| 32 | Mulching to improve soil health | $658 |
| 33 | Structures for Wildlife | $421 |
| 34 | Woody Residue Treatment | $242 |
| Show All | ||
| Show Less | ||
| Total Payments, 2017-2022 | 20,959,691 | |
NRCS 2024 climate smart practice.
NRCS 2024 provisional climate smart practice.
NCRS climate smart practices on CSP acres, 2017-2022, California
| Rank | Practice | Payments, 2017-2022 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Improved grazing management through monitoring activities | $194,353 |
| 2 | Herbaceous weed treatment to create plant communities consistent with the ecological site | $131,080 |
| 3 | Management Intensive Rotational Grazing | $121,995 |
| 4 | Prescribed Grazing | $57,891 |
| 5 | Improving nutrient uptake efficiency and reducing risk of nutrient losses | $39,015 |
| 6 | Prescribed grazing that improves or maintains riparian and watershed function-erosion | $17,693 |
| 7 | Irrigation Water Management | $4,333 |
| 8 | Mulching to improve soil health | $658 |
| 9 | Woody Residue Treatment | $242 |
| Total Climate Smart CSP payments, 2017-2022 | $567,260 | |
| Climate Smart CSP payments, 2017-2022 | $431,605 | |
| Provisional Climate Smart CSP payments, 2017-2022 | $135,655 |
NRCS 2024 climate smart practice.
NRCS 2024 provisional climate smart practice.
CSP payments by county, 2017-2022
| Rank | State | CSP Payments, 2017-2022 |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | San Luis Obispo County, California | $7,126,885 |
| 2 | Monterey County, California | $2,838,889 |
| 3 | Siskiyou County, California | $2,496,418 |
| 4 | Yolo County, California | $1,198,327 |
| 5 | Kern County, California | $816,266 |
| 6 | Sutter County, California | $249,246 |
| 7 | Glenn County, California | $217,877 |
| 8 | Los Angeles County, California | $183,344 |
| 9 | Merced County, California | $105,603 |
| 10 | Colusa County, California | $95,692 |
| 11 | Solano County, California | $29,768 |
| 12 | Humboldt County, California | $21,514 |
| 13 | Mendocino County, California | $13,589 |
| 14 | Stanislaus County, California | $12,914 |
| 15 | Mono County, California | $11,646 |
| 16 | Tehama County, California | $7,046 |
| 17 | Lassen County, California | $5,748 |
| 18 | Plumas County, California | $333 |
| 19 | San Mateo County, California | $0 |
| 20 | San Bernardino County, California | $0 |
| 21 | San Joaquin County, California | $0 |
| 22 | Santa Barbara County, California | $0 |
| 23 | San Diego County, California | $0 |
| 24 | Nevada County, California | $0 |
| 25 | Santa Clara County, California | $0 |
| 26 | Santa Cruz County, California | $0 |
| 27 | Shasta County, California | $0 |
| 28 | Sierra County, California | $0 |
| 29 | Sonoma County, California | $0 |
| 30 | Trinity County, California | $0 |
| 31 | Tulare County, California | $0 |
| 32 | Tuolumne County, California | $0 |
| 33 | Ventura County, California | $0 |
| 34 | Yuba County, California | $0 |
| 35 | Lake County, California | $0 |
| 36 | Alpine County, California | $0 |
| 37 | Amador County, California | $0 |
| 38 | Butte County, California | $0 |
| 39 | Calaveras County, California | $0 |
| 40 | Contra Costa County, California | $0 |
| 41 | Del Norte County, California | $0 |
| 42 | El Dorado County, California | $0 |
| 43 | Fresno County, California | $0 |
| 44 | Imperial County, California | $0 |
| 45 | Inyo County, California | $0 |
| 46 | Kings County, California | $0 |
| 47 | San Benito County, California | $0 |
| 48 | Madera County, California | $0 |
| 49 | Marin County, California | $0 |
| 50 | Mariposa County, California | $0 |
| 51 | Modoc County, California | $0 |
| 52 | Napa County, California | $0 |
| 53 | Alameda County, California | $0 |
| 54 | Orange County, California | $0 |
| 55 | Placer County, California | $0 |
| 56 | Riverside County, California | $0 |
| 57 | Sacramento County, California | $0 |
| Show All | ||
| Show Less | ||
The state-level CSP data only includes practices that had more than four contracts in a state for a particular year. Because of this, the data contained within the state pages will not sum up to the total payments by practice on the national page.
USDA Census of Agriculture Data for California, 2022
Land in California, 2022
| Land type | Acres |
|---|---|
| Number of Farms: | 63,134 |
| Total Acres in Farms: | 24,190,604 |
| Cropland Acres: | 10,049,618 |
| Permanent pasture and rangeland: | 10,943,113 |
| Woodland Acres: | 1,703,923 |
Livestock in California, 2022
| Livestock | Number of Animals |
|---|---|
| Broilers and other meat-type chickens sold | 313,662,311 |
| Layers inventory | 13,454,544 |
| Cattle and calves inventory | 5,239,070 |
| Sheep and lambs inventory | 532,849 |
| Hogs and pigs inventory | 82,010 |
USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program needs reform to improve climate benefits
Despite new climate-smart funds, agricultural conservation programs remain oversubscribed
Environmentally sensitive Mississippi River region croplands should be targeted for conservation
Major USDA conservation program must change to prioritize climate stewardship
$7.4B spent on two of USDA’s biggest conservation programs, very little went to ‘climate-smart’ agriculture
Climate change isn’t high priority for $1.2 billion USDA farm stewardship program
