America’s farmland is an irreplaceable part of our natural heritage. The U.S. is home to more than 10 percent of the entire planet’s agricultural land, and it is essential that conservation efforts empower and support, not hinder, the farmers and ranchers who depend on it.
The economy or the climate? Why not both?
Subscribe for ideas that support the environment and the people.
Voluntary conservation programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) do just that. They empower landowners to be stewards of their land without relying on top-down, bureaucratic mandates. As Chairman Boozman (R-AR) mentioned in Tuesday’s hearing, “Heavy-handed government does not know better than the individual producer.”
The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry held part 4 of a hearing series, titled “Perspectives from the Field.” The session focused on the role of conservation in agriculture and featured testimonies from producers and experts who have seen the value of the Farm Bill voluntary conservation programs firsthand.
One witness, Gary Blair of the National Association of Conservation Districts, emphasized that these programs support land resiliency and resource preservation and offer significant economic benefits to producers.
He explained that soil health management systems, often funded through these programs, help reduce input costs and boost farm revenue by an average of $65 per acre. A typical U.S. farm (average size in 2024 was 466 acres) amounts to over $30,000 in additional income each year.
Beyond financial gains, these practices also substantially improve crop yields. Farms using these practices report increased yields on 42 percent of corn acres, 32 percent of soybean acres, and 35 percent of acres growing various other crops.
>>> READ: AI is Helping Farmers Kill Weeds
Another witness testified on the growing concern for the loss of farmland in America and how voluntary programs can help slow the trend. Chad Ellis of Texas’s Agricultural Land Trust testified that between 2001 and 2016, America lost 2,000 acres of farmland daily, more than 11 million acres over those 15 years.
One tool in safeguarding agricultural land is the conservation easement, a legal agreement that ensures land remains dedicated to agricultural use forever. Key Farm Bill programs, including the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), often support these easements.
However, Ellis argued that some structural changes are needed for the easements to be good financial investments for landowners, such as eliminating the Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) limitations in ACEP and the Agricultural Land Easement (ALE) program.
Since compensation for the purchase of a conservation easement is a transfer of private property rights, Ellis argued it should not be subject to income caps, as it is not a subsidy payment.
However, the income threshold was not the only reform raised during the testimony.
The current administration’s proposed staffing cuts across the USDA also sparked significant concern. With approximately 30,000 positions expected to be eliminated, both witnesses and members of Congress voiced skepticism that the agency will have the technical assistance capacity needed to serve farmers and ranchers effectively.
A recently reintroduced bipartisan bill may help mitigate the impact of these staffing reductions. The Increased TSP Access Act, introduced by Congressman Jim Baird (R-IN), Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS), and Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO), aims to expand access to Technical Service Providers (TSPs) by streamlining the certification process and creating new pathways for qualified professionals.
>>> READ: Strengthening Conservation Through the Increased TSP Access Act
Another topic of ongoing discussion at the hearing was the inclusion of Inflation Reduction Act dollars into the Farm Bill Title II baseline. Advocates emphasized the year-over-year conservation program oversubscription, noting that only about one-third of applicants typically receive funding. However, the IRA conservation funding has helped alleviate this issue in recent years. Gary Blair testified that in FY24, “IRA funding allowed NRCS to fund 80% more than they would’ve otherwise been able to, but still only 43% of requests.”
The proposed reconciliation bill includes this provision, highlighting the House’s commitment to support farmers and ranchers. Notably, the bill also removes the “climate-specific” guardrails originally tied by the Biden administration to IRA funds, giving producers greater flexibility in using conservation support.
It might make sense for some farmers to use conservation funding to improve irrigation efficiency, a practice with limited impact on emissions but essential for water conservation. For others, investing in cover crops may be more effective, offering both soil health benefits and emissions reductions. The key is allowing flexibility for farmers and ranchers to meet diverse agricultural and environmental goals.
Tuesday’s hearing made one thing clear: voluntary, flexible, incentive-based programs empower farmers and ranchers to be effective stewards of the land. The NRCS programs boost productivity, preserve resources, and protect America’s farmland for generations. With smart policy changes and robust support, we can ensure conservation remains a tool for human flourishing and environmental prosperity.
The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.
