Stuck in the Weeds: How the Next Farm Bill Impacts the Environment
Written by Andrew Hockenberry & Emma Scott
Plant sequoias.
Say that your main crop is the forest
that you did not plant,
that you will not live to harvest.
Say that the leaves are harvested
when they have rotted into the mold.
Call that profit.
This excerpt comes from Wendell Berry’s 1973 poem titled, Manifesto: The Mad Farmer Liberation Front. Over 50 years later, the idea of farmers planting trees is not so “mad.” Instead, one might refer to agroforestry as “climate-smart” agriculture. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) considers agroforestry a climate-smart agricultural practice. Through the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the USDA pays farmers to implement practices like planting trees to sequester carbon. Congress limited these funds to support only climate-smart practices. With the sun-close-to-setting on the IRA and no word from Congress on a new Farm Bill, it is unclear whether Congress will continue funding climate-smart agriculture with IRA funds. Instead, Congress could remove the “climate-smart” requirement and expand the funding for current Farm Bill conservation practices that do not necessarily have a clear impact on emissions or sequestration. Even when many of those practices, in the face of climate change, might seem . . . “mad.”
This Article provides an overview of where the 2024 Farm Bill got “stuck in the weeds” regarding conservation spending. First, the Article will introduce the Conservation title of the Farm Bill. Next, it will discuss the IRA and the $19.5 billion in the IRA marked for conservation in agriculture. Then, it will cover the back and forth of the current Farm Bill negotiations and the proposals from different parties. Finally, the Article will end by giving an update on the impacts of the 2024 elections and the forecast for a new Farm Bill.
Conservation in the Farm Bill
In 1935, Congress passed the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act, declaring soil erosion a “menace to the national welfare.” Three years later, Congress wove soil conservation into the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938—one of the earliest versions of the Farm Bill. The emphasis on soil conservation in the Farm Bill ebbed and flowed throughout its early renditions. However, Congress established a Conservation title in the 1985 Farm Bill, which implemented “conservation compliance” requirements conditioning farmer eligibility for specific programs on adherence to minimum conservation measures.
A decade later, in 1996, Congress authorized the first version of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—USDA’s flagship conservation program for “working lands.” Through EQIP, the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provides financial assistance to producers via reimbursements—or cost sharing—for practice adoption and implementation. In order to receive benefits, producers must implement the conservation practice(s) according to an EQIP plan developed with NRCS that identifies the appropriate conservation practice to address a specific land resource concern. Congress has modified and reauthorized EQIP in every subsequent Farm Bill. Most recently, the 2018 Farm Bill expanded EQIP, steadily increasing its annual budget from $1.75 billion in FY2019 to over $2 billion in FY2023.
However, environmentalists often criticize EQIP for awarding funding to practices that do not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sequester carbon, or build climate resilience. These critiques are not without merit. In 2020, over 11% of the funding went to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). CAFOs directly contribute to the climate crisis through methane and nitrous oxide emissions. They also pollute the air and water, particularly through animal manure and manure management, making it difficult to see why they would receive any conservation funding through the Farm Bill.
On the other hand, given CAFOs’ prevalence in our food system, funding to strengthen waste storage facilities may be wise. One of the significant environmental risks associated with CAFOs is waste runoff. Typically, CAFOs store waste in open lagoons. These lagoons seep waste into the groundwater and are vulnerable to overflow with heavy rain and flooding events, which happen more frequently with climate change. Although giving EQIP funds to CAFOs does not contribute to climate change mitigation, one could argue that it is a necessary climate adaptation strategy.
Agriculture and The Inflation Reduction Act
In 2022, President Biden signed the IRA into law after it passed through Congress, mainly along party lines. The IRA added $19.5 billion over five years to support conservation in agriculture. Congress designated about half of that money to the EQIP program. However, Congress also narrowed the requirements for these specific EQIP funds, stating that IRA money is available only if the Secretary of Agriculture “determines [the practice] directly improve soil carbon, reduce nitrogen losses, or reduce, capture, avoid, or sequester carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide emissions, associated with agricultural production.”
The NRCS interprets this legislative directive to mean “climate-smart” agricultural practices. It defines “climate-smart” practices as those reducing greenhouse gas emissions, sequestering carbon, and building climate resilience. These practices are not new, but rather build on practices already employed by farmers. Through climate-smart funding in the IRA, the NRCS now pays farmers for practices like no/low-till, nutrient management, and cover-cropping.
While the NRCS approach is statutorily mandated in the IRA to be narrower than the existing EQIP programs, it casts a wide net. In 2024, the NRCS expanded its list to 57 practices it considers “climate-smart agriculture and forestry” (CSAF). Despite the legislative directive, some practices on the list do not directly sequester carbon. The NRCS explains its list expansion as necessary to “facilitate the management or function of a CSAF activity.” Some see this as a good strategy because it encourages a broader range of farmers to take smaller steps, which ultimately leads to significant changes. Others, however, believe NRCS’s expansive strategy does not create change fast enough.
Amidst this debate, scientific uncertainty remains about which practices are the climate-smartest—i.e., which practices sequester more carbon and which reduce more greenhouse gas emissions. For example, planting trees pulls carbon from the atmosphere and, thus, may have a more significant (or measurable) climate mitigation impact than no-till or planting cover crops, which simply keeps carbon stored in the soil. Evaluating these practices is quite challenging. For example, one study identified and collected 378 different indicators of climate-smart practices. Moreover, farmers in some areas might be unable to employ the practices that have the most significant impact. In the face of such adversity, the NRCS has continued to cast a wide net.
The Sticking Points
The IRA’s funding expires in 2026, and the 2018 Farm Bill’s funding expired in 2023, though Congress authorized continuing support for another year through a continuing resolution. The sticking point in the Conservation title, and a principal hold-up of the bill, boils down to whether Congress should continue to fund the IRA EQIP program with “climate-smart” guard rails. Alternatively, Congress could roll the IRA dollars into the Farm Bill Conservation title, which offers funding for a broader range of agricultural practices that may not be so climate-smart.
The debate over what to do with these funds tracks along party lines. Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA), Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, supported removing the climate-smart requirement in the House Agriculture Committee draft Farm Bill. Thompson, along with other House and Senate Republicans, argues that the climate-smart requirements add needless hoops for farmers to jump through. On the other side of the debate, the Senate Agriculture Committee Chair, Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), considers the climate-smart requirements essential for resolving Farm Bill negotiations.
2024 Election Impacts on the New Farm Bill
In the wake of the November elections, Republicans walked away with a trifecta of victories. Next year, Republicans will control the House (5 seats), the Senate (6 seats), and the White House. Many on the right want to roll back IRA money through a budget reconciliation bill. But with the IRA benefiting many states with Republican leadership, we could see some of that money woven into existing Farm Bill programs—with climate-smart guard rails off, of course. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats have introduced Farm Bill text, including the climate-smart guard rails for the EQIP program. While bipartisan support is needed to pass the Farm Bill, Republicans know that if they hold out through this lame-duck session, they can lead negotiations next year and even achieve some of their goals through budget reconciliation. Unlike the Farm Bill, budget reconciliation can pass the House and Senate with a simple majority vote. Thus, budget reconciliation will be just as important to USDA conservation spending as the Farm Bill, which will likely see another extension before the end of 2024.
Author Bios
Andrew Hockenberry is a 3L at Vermont Law and Graduate School. He is a senior staff editor on Vermont Law Review. At VLGS, he is working towards earning a J.D. and a Masters in Food and Agricultural Law and Policy. He attended undergraduate at the University of Louisville, earning a B.S. in Applied Geography. After undergrad, he spent three years working with produce production in Louisville, KY and then moved to Chicago to teach urban agriculture. He continued to work in gardening and produce production. Currently, he is a member of the National Food Law Student Network Executive Board and a member of VLGS’s Food and Agriculture Law Society. After law school, he hopes to continue to help strengthen the connections and coalitions bringing meaningful change to our food system.
Emma Scott is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Food and Agriculture Clinic at VLGS. Her work focuses on food system workers and food system policy at the federal, state, and local level. Previously she served as the Associate Director of the HLS Food Law and Policy Clinic (FLPC) and a Lecturer on Law at Harvard Law School. At FLPC, Emma primarily led FLPC’s advocacy on farm bill policy, food system workers, and improvement of USDA programs and services. She was the Supervising Attorney for the Mississippi Delta Project and led FLPC’s partnerships in the Mississippi Delta region. Prior to joining FLPC, Emma served as an Attorney-Fellow at California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in the Labor and Civil Rights Litigation Unit (supported by Justice Catalyst). At CRLAF, Emma’s practice focused on group representation of workers from immigrant communities in employment litigation, with an emphasis on farmworkers and the H-2A visa program. Before that, Emma clerked on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California for the Hon. John A. Mendez for two years, assuming the position and responsibilities of Senior Law Clerk in her second year. She received her B.S. in Social Sciences, magna cum laude, with a concentration in Cross-Cultural Studies and International Development, from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and her J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School.