EQIP Ranking Criteria Items

Updated 09/18/2008

O.   Pond (378), Spring Development (574), Pipeline (516), Watering Facility (614), Well (642)

• EQIP eligibility for water system developments are limited to operations where livestock are present during the evaluation period and poor livestock distribution is resulting in resource degradation.

• All of the following conditions must be met before planning any of the water development practices above:

1. Evidence of livestock presence must be apparent during the ranking period;

2. A resource concern, that better livestock distribution will treat, must be evident (resource concern cannot be due primarily to over-stocking);


• The producer must be willing to maintain a minimum stubble height (based on forage species) for the field being treated. The bottom line is that watering facilities are only eligible if they facilitate a better distribution of grazing and ultimately lead to an improved resource base (no over-grazing).

• When a watering facility is placed in a field adjacent to a stream, fencing the stream is required. In this situation, points are assigned to both the watering facility/pipeline tank and to the fence.

• Ponds, wells, and spring developments are eligible only when there are no other sources of water in a field. The water system planned must be the most cost-effective means for the government. Cost-sharing for pumps is not authorized. In planning the source for a system, consideration should be given to selecting alternative sources to those that may be restricted in the event of droughts, such as prohibiting use of public water supplies for agricultural use. A pond, well, or spring development may be considered the most adequate and dependable supply even though they may be more costly in a situation where an applicant may be restricted from using municipal water for agricultural use during drought events. In other situations, a pipeline and water facility using municipal water lines as the source may be the most dependable and cost effective source. These are planning considerations and are decisions which can only be made by the conservation planner.

• Cost-sharing is authorized only for permanently installed tanks or waterers.

• Cost-sharing is not authorized for portable tanks/waterers or above-ground pipelines. Portable waters such as nose pumps may be installed as long as they are permanently mounted.

• Cost-sharing is not authorized for any of the referenced practices for the primary purpose of controlling gully erosion or installation in confined livestock operations, including loafing lots.

• Assign points and apply costs of all companion practices and components for the pond, well, or spring development such as fence, watering facility, pipeline, geotextile, rock, and vegetation establishment. In the case of an excavated pond assign points and apply costs of all companion practices and components such as fence, vegetation establishment, and water access ramp.

• See Appendix A for guidance in determining the primary practice for water development practices.

• Cost-share is limited to 65% of the actual cost not-to-exceed an actual payment of $7,500 for embankment ponds and $3,000 for excavated ponds.