In this second installment of our 3-part series on better targeting of U.S. farm conservation funds, WRI found that combining geographic targeting with benefit-cost principles could potentially yield seven to 12 times more environmental benefits per dollar spent than the current approach. To conduct this analysis, we used the best available data and models from the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). We found several technical, institutional, and political barriers preventing attainment of these modeled results and provided four recommendations which may help realize gains in improved water quality and increased cost effectiveness.