What the Hell is USDA's SUSTAINS Act, and What's it Do for Conservation and Agriculture | Opinion

Photo byKarsten WürthonUnsplash

Boy, I'm Glad You Asked.

Welcome back, my fellow Americans, to "Boy, I'm Glad You Asked." This is my series of explainers that breaks down big concepts into real-people terms — not politic-ese or academic bullstuff, no. This is an explainer by the people — for the people.

In this instance of "Boy, I'm Glad You Asked," we'll be looking at what the USDA is currently seeking public opinion on — the SUSTAINS Act.

As with all bills that whistle through the high halls of Congress, it's about two things: politics, money, or both. In this case — it's mostly about money. For once, though, it's not about the government spending money. It's about revenue — and it stands to be a good deal for both the country's farmers and conservationists: no small feat. That's a rare thing. It does have its detractors in Big Ag, and we'll talk about that, too.

The real name is a mouthful: Sponsoring USDA Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to Incentivize Natural Solutions Act of 2021.

Now, before some of y'all get the willies about "sustainability" — read first, jerk the knee later. Because, to spell it out, you won't be paying for it. Your tax money has nothing to do with it — despite what the ranching organizations are saying. Nothing in the bill is about distributing tax revenue to anything, or otherwise making life more difficult for farmers — or anyone else. Except maybe Big Ag, but let's face it — I won't lose sleep over their hurt feelings, and neither should you, Citizen.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service

In a rare case of legislative simplicity — SUSTAINS is straightforward. It just doesn't do exactly what it says on the tin.

What it does do: it authorizes the Natural Resources Conservation Service to accept non-federal (read: not your tax) money to be used for more things under the NRCS's purview.

If you're a little longer in the tooth — you might not recognize the name, but the NRCS has been around for a very long time under it's other name, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service — the ones who trained farmers years back on crop rotation, erosion control, so on. The name changed somewhat quietly under the Bill Clinton administration as the former Soil Service was allowed to aid farmers more and became more involved in the conservation side of agricultural sciences.

They also — if you're a fan of fun facts like me — collect just about any kind of information you can imagine about nature and agriculture: they collect and share information on the nation's soil, water, air, and plants. They're a valuable resource (alongside the U.S. Geological Survey) for farmers, naturalists, ecologists, plant biologists, you name it.

The NRCS is also involved in cost-sharing and financial aid for farmers, ranchers, and people with privately managed lands (more on that in a sec).

So, What's It Do?

Well, the SUSTAINS Act specifically involves several programs from the NRCS, like the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

The CSP has been important for small farms since it was originally created in 1996 — because it allows land that's fallow, not being grazed by livestock, or otherwise just "spare," land to be earmarked for environmental conservation (usually in terms of private wildlife refuges or protected wetlands). It gives farmers money simply for keeping the land at a high-quality environmental level.

That was something the older Soil Conservation Service began as a way to keep farmers from having to over-farm — plant fencerow-to-fencerow and deplete soil resources. It's a program that's good for small farmers — because land isn't being overused until its worthless, or over-grazed — and generally just requires the parcel of land get left alone, and otherwise kept protected.

It's been a good deal for both farmers and conservationists. Small farms are better able to stay afloat without having to plant fencerow-to-fencerow, or have pastureland that's not being used and just taking up space (and costing property tax money) — and the land is able to recover and thrive in ways that it wouldn't on a big-scale farm.

The EQIP is similar — financial incentives for keeping up land and not over-using it.

These are the kinds of programs SUSTAINS is dealing with.

What the Act itself does is allow state or nonprofit or even private money to the NCRS to be used for these programs — instead of having to pour more federal tax into the Farm Bill.

The Act has been reguarly pitched since 2021 (hence the name) and was signed into law late last year, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

That Doesn't Sound Too Bad

Really doesn't, does it?

The Biden administration has been pitching it as part of their "green" initiatives — allowing the private sector (which, in practice, is mostly nonprofits) to offset carbon emissions, provide wildlife habitats, prevent wetlands erosion, so forth. That's the politics.

It does that — but on a more practical level — it allows NCRS to do more with less government cheese. It becomes less reliant on government spending (via the Farm Bill) — and the private sector helps prop it up.

It's a rare political win-win. The GOP (it was, after all, originally penned by Pennsylvania Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-15th District) gets less government spending and "smaller government," the Democrats get expanded conservation efforts they don't actually have to do themselves (farmers are already doing it on their own — thanks to the programs it involves), and small farms get an extra hand and get to worry less about political gridlock every five years when the Farm Bill gets held hostage.

It's a law that was born on the traditionally-very-bipartisan (and one of the precious few Committees passing useful — instead of just political — laws) House Agriculture Committee.

You can read the whole bill text here. Give Thompson one thing, he's good at writing easy-to-understand laws.

You Said Ranchers Were Upset, Didn't You?

I did say that, didn't I?

During the ongoing comment period on how to implement it — remember, it's already been passed into law: it's just a matter of how to roll it out — R-CALF had some...opinions.

For those of y'all not into cow politics, R-CALF is the largest independent cattle producers' association in the country. For those of y'all into cow politics — their full name is (deep breath with me) the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America.

I'd go by R-CALF, too.

They're an important organizations for ranchers — and they're an organization I usually do agree with on most things. Their stance on SUSTAINS is "repeal it." Which is...to be plain, not even on the table.

The following's taken from their public comment on the SUSTAINS Act, which you can read in full here, directly from the R-CALF's mouth, and is the heart of their arguement:

"The provisions within the SUSTAINS Act will undoubtedly exacerbate the egregious revolving door phenomenon* by granting private corporations proximate access to USDA officials gained through their financial contributions that independent livestock producers could not possibly match.

Further, the USDA would be expected to become dependent on such private contributions and that very dependency would incentivize the USDA to provide private donors special treatment that would be expected to transcend the targeted program receiving the private contributions to impact other unrelated USDA agency programs intended to regulate the conduct of the contributor."

* What Mr. Bill Bullard (CEO of R-CALF) is talking about with the "revolving door phenomenon" is a well-known problem with the USDA and virutally every other government agency — the movement back and forth between government and private industpositions.

R-CALF USA President Brett Kenzy had this to say: “Our government has rules over how it treats citizens, big business is also limited by laws of conduct over its customers."

“A law like the SUSTAINS Act unites corporate and government power, blurring those rules of legal and ethical behavior."

Which is a fair assessment — but not one that, to my mind, would require repealing it wholesale. The beef R-CALF (pun absolutely intended) has with the Act is a problem within our government itself — not in this specific Act.

Which is, to be fair, why the USDA is seeking comment on implementation — and why those comments are important. If enough people, like R-CALF and independent ranchers and farmers, and the general public make that position known, there's a better chance that better safeguards will be put in place.

Or, preferably, better disbursement requirements — to ensure that not all the money is going to the country's largest ranches and farms. That's something that's also long been a concern for farmers — and generally an inherent weakness in both the Farm Bill itself and most things the USDA does. There's a basket of political reasons why this is, but the biggest are:

1. Big Ag simply has more lobby money to buy laws and adopt pet lawmakers with.

2. The constant slap-fight between the states and federal government. The more complex the federal law, and the more stipulations it comes with, the more likely it is to upset the governors.

Personally — I'd say the SUSTAINS Act has potential, but it does desperately need guardrails to prevent abuses from Big Farma and to ensure that the money goes where it was intended to go — to independent farms and ranches.

The part R-CALF misses is also an important criticism of the SUSTAINS Act — the fact that it also has a political level of encouraging large producers to cash in, in order to move the green needle.

That's not inherently a bad thing — good land is good land — but that shouldn't come at the expense of people running family farms or starting brand-new ones. It's better targeted toward those starting new farms — or working with what they already have — than into the pocket of a Big Ag CEO who last had a real job when he was sacking groceries in high school to buy a sixer of Lone Star off the football coach.

Do I Get to Tell the USDA How the Cow Eats the Cabbage?

You bet you do — and you should. Your voice matters just as much as R-CALF's, mine, or anybody else's. That's the great thing about our country.

You can bother the USDA via the notice about SUSTAINS in the Federal Register — by clicking right here.

If you're a farmer — or considering becoming one when you grow up — you can also contact your local extension agency or your local USDA Service Center for more information on the NCRS and other kinds of help for farmers.

If you enjoyed this piece, come say hi over at A Boy & His Dog Save America: where I talk about rural and agriculture politics, conservation, wildlife, and all the best parts of Americana. You can also find me there — if you need to share a spicy tip or recipe for chicken wings with me.