Every five years, Congress is tasked with passing the federal farm bill, a crucial piece of legislation that shapes the American food and agriculture landscape. Although often perceived as mere farming policy, this comprehensive legislation extends its influence to food production, land management, rural economic support, and the distribution of federal resources for conservation, nutrition, research, and rural programs.
Since its inception, conservation policy has been a cornerstone of the farm bill. Farmers and ranchers, beyond producing food and fiber, serve as stewards of the nation’s vital soil, water, land, and natural resources. Conservation programs have become essential tools in promoting both environmental sustainability and farm viability, particularly as extreme weather events become more frequent, land degradation worsens, and rural communities face growing economic hardships.
The development of farm conservation policy has been a gradual process shaped by economic crises, environmental disasters, and political negotiations. Understanding the origins and evolution of conservation policy within the farm bill is crucial to assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current version that has recently moved through the House Agriculture Committee and awaits congressional deliberation.
A brief history of conservation policy
In 1933, during the peak of the Great Depression when unemployment soared to 25 percent, President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), which provided subsidies to farmers to prevent overproduction. In 1935, the Soil Conservation Act was enacted to address environmental damage that led to the Dust Bowl crisis.
However, the Supreme Court ruled a new tax on processors funding the AAA subsidies unconstitutional. In response, Congress enacted the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act of 1936, linking agricultural production with soil conservation by offering direct payments to farmers who reduced planting of soil-depleting crops.
For the next two decades, conservation priorities took a backseat to increasing production for World War II. Although conservation programs were established in the Agricultural Act of 1956, the USDA again prioritized production to meet perceived demand, leading to the 1980s farm crisis and renewed focus on conservation policies.
The 1985 farm bill introduced programs like the Conservation Reserve Program and set conservation compliance standards through Swampbuster and Sodsaver provisions, addressing wetland drainage and native sod plowing. This bill was the first to include a specific conservation section. Noteworthy programs today include the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which offer financial incentives for farmers to adopt conservation practices but remain oversubscribed and underfunded.
Despite decades of conservation efforts, challenges persist: Soil erosion continues to impact farmland and contribute to severe dust storms, agricultural runoff exacerbates the Gulf of Mexico’s annual dead zone, and excess fertilizer contaminates drinking water and contributes to climate change.
What’s in the proposed farm bill?
In February, the House Agriculture Committee approved the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) with a 34-17 vote. While the bill offers necessary updates and policy changes, it falls short in addressing the crises faced by farmers and the food supply chain since the last farm bill in 2018.
The Good: The FFNSA introduces environmentally favorable provisions, prioritizing nutrient management and soil health in agricultural research. It includes practices for soil health, heat-trapping emissions, and carbon sequestration. States can select ten priority practices for reimbursement up to 90%, provided they enhance carbon sequestration or reduce greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxide.
The Bad: Precision agriculture, employing technology like GPS and drones to optimize input use, can enhance conservation through innovation. The FFNSA allows increased payments for up to 90% of costs for adopting precision agriculture practices. While offering positive environmental benefits such as increased profits and reduced input use, it poses challenges for conservation programs.
Large farms benefit from economies of scale, enjoying savings in fuel, labor, and inputs, whereas small farms face higher per-acre costs for precision technology. Innovations in seeds and precision agriculture have boosted efficiency and yields but led to rising production costs and pressures favoring larger-scale operations over smaller farms.
The costs associated with precision agriculture could escalate demand for EQIP and CSP. These programs have many farmers eager to adopt conservation practices but are often turned away due to inadequate funding. If precision agriculture remains in the farm bill, Congress must ensure targeted support for small-scale, socially disadvantaged, and limited-resource farmers. Mandatory funding should be increased to assure these farmers’ profitability, independent of appropriators’ discretion.
The Ugly: The FFNSA asserts that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the federal government should exclusively create uniformity in EPA-approved pesticide labeling through their rigorous, science-based review process. However, this would remove state governments’ authority to regulate additional pesticides, even if they contain carcinogens.
This provision’s implications extend beyond labeling. States have historically intervened when federal regulation lagged behind scientific developments or public health concerns. Preempting state authority could restrict states’ ability to respond to new research on pesticide exposure, environmental contamination, and farmworker safety.
Envisioning a better farm bill
Beyond the positives, negatives, and drawbacks, the broader issue with this farm bill iteration is its preservation of the status quo. Farmers nationwide have faced numerous disruptions since the last farm bill, including supply chain breakdowns during COVID-19, rising input costs, extreme weather events, land ownership consolidation, and increased food prices due to geopolitical conflicts. Yet, the FFNSA does little to fundamentally reshape the policy framework determining how federal resources reach farmers and communities.
At a time when many producers—particularly beginning farmers, small and midsize limited-resource producers, and socially disadvantaged farmers—struggle to remain viable, the farm bill should offer an opportunity to rethink federal program support for regeneration and resilience. Although the proposed legislation includes marker bills to strengthen local and regional food systems and continues authorizing many programs, the funding streams are not mandatory, leaving authorizations to the discretion of the appropriations committee. It also fails entirely to support or recognize food and farm workers.
The next farm bill must acknowledge that conservation and economic viability are complementary, not competing, goals. Healthy soils enhance productivity, reduce input costs, increase water retention, and help farmers endure droughts and floods. Policies promoting regenerative practices, diversified cropping systems, and small-scale farming conservation can simultaneously improve economic viability and environmental outcomes.
Ultimately, the farm bill is more than agricultural legislation; it is the largest food and agriculture policy framework in the U.S., influencing everything from crop cultivation to family diets and future land management. A truly forward-thinking farm bill would invest in farmers as land stewards, strengthen rural economies, expand opportunities for future producers, and ensure conservation remains central to U.S. agriculture.
As Congress deliberates the FFNSA, the challenge is clear: to move beyond incremental adjustments and craft a transformational farm bill that addresses the realities farmers face today and will encounter in the future, ensuring genuine food and farm security.
