20 Ways the House Farm Bill Leans into Speed and Innovation
The premier federal legislation for food and farms, the Farm Bill, is also one of the most consequential for the environment because of agriculture’s broad footprint and the billions of dollars it pours into conservation. While this year’s version is hundreds of pages and dozens of distinct sections, we found 20 provisions that will encourage speed and innovation in how America’s farmers (and foresters) and their Department care for the environment.
Background
On March 3rd and 4th, The House Agriculture Committee held a markup of the 2026 Farm, Food, and National Security Act, also known as the Farm Bill. The result of that markup was advancing out of the House committee on a 34-17, bipartisan vote. All of the committee’s Republicans and seven Democrats supported it.
There is no date scheduled yet for a vote on the floor, but Ag Committee Chair Thompson said that the speaker has promised him floor time after Easter this year. Its passage faces hurdles from both fiscal hawk Republicans and a broad swath of Democrats.
In the Senate, Committee Chair Boozman has said to expect a markup in that chamber within “weeks not months” but has not scheduled a date.
While we wait for a floor vote in the House and text from the Senate, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at a few areas EPIC sees as opportunities to support environmental speed and innovation.
But first…
The headline-grabbers
These provisions don’t necessarily fit into our framework of “speed and innovation,” but they’re important for understanding the general structure of the bill and what you’ll hear the most about.
Last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) included numerous changes that amounted to shifting funding from the Nutrition title to the Commodity title–from food stamps to crop subsidies. This Farm Bill does not reverse or significantly alter those funding changes.
OBBBA also adjusted some of the funding for conservation that was passed in the Inflation Reduction Act, mostly by incorporating it into the ongoing baseline for the farm Bill and by removing requirements to focus on mitigating climate change. Again, these changes are not reversed or significantly altered in this bill, but there are some other notable changes to conservation funding:
The approved legislation cuts $1.055 billion dollars from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program’s (EQIP) first five fiscal years and distributes it to other parts of the Conservation Title. This is something of a gimmick to reduce funding in the short term (freeing it up for other uses) while not changing it over the 10 year life that the Congressional Budget Office uses to score the bill.
EQIP and the Conservation Stewardship Program’s (CSP) cost-share payment rates for precision agriculture are increased from 75% of the expected cost to 90%.
The minimum payment under the Conservation Stewardship Program is increased from $2,500 in the last Farm Bill to $4,000.
Cost share rates for the Agricultural Land Easement Program, which protects farmland from development, are increased to 65% from 50%.
Controversially, the bill preempts state regulation of pesticides and animal welfare rules, like California’s Proposition 12. Much has been discussed about how the more permissive pesticide rules included here seem to divide the Trump coalition between pro-farmer and pro-MAHA.
The legislation creates a new Forest Conservation Easement Program that allows tribes, state and local governments, and land trusts to purchase and hold voluntary conservation easements from willing forest landowners, similar to how they currently can put easements on farmland to prevent development. This fills a gap in federal easements programs for working forests specifically.
A provision of the Forestry Title requires the Forest Service to suppress wildfires within 24 hours of detection on National Forest System lands that are particularly vulnerable to fire. And it restricts the Forest Service’s ability to use beneficial fires–managing naturally ignited wildfires, conducting prescribed fires–which contradicts the decades-old fire science consensus that blanket suppression drives fuel accumulation and severity of future fires.
The Regional Conservation Partnership Program
We care a lot about this program because its alternative funding arrangements provide some of the greatest opportunity to innovate on how NRCS funds conservation, including one of the federal government’s only statutory authorization for performance-based payments. Unfortunately, it’s also been bedeviled by complications and delays that have frustrated the partners carrying out much of the work, as outlined in our report, “A Good Program in Theory”.
The RCPP text provided in this version of the Farm Bill is 100% identical to the text in the bill that was introduced last Congress. So, if–like me–you read through it all last year, feel free to skip this section. But if you could use a refresher, take a look at the tweaks being made to smooth out some of the program’s kinks:
The largest change would revert the administrative mechanics of RCPP’s Classic track back to the way the program operated under the 2014 Farm Bill, using other program’s authorities. So, farmers who, for instance, participate in an RCPP project to plant more cover crops in the Great Lakes region would go back to signing EQIP contracts–rather than RCPP contracts, like they’ve been doing under the 2018 Farm Bill authorities. There are some allowances to waive the typical rules of covered programs when flexibility is needed to meet the RCPP project goal. And the more innovative alternative funding arrangement track is not affected by this change. Without weighing in on the merits of the 2014 vs 2018 rules, overhauling the program once again will certainly cause some disruptions, and I’m glad to see the alternative funding arrangements wouldn’t get swept up in that.
Up to 10% of the funds obligated into a RCPP agreement would be allowed to be used for administrative expenses related to the project. Currently, no administrative expenses are allowed, which means partners get no indirect on the awards.
Partners would now be explicitly required to provide at least 50% of the costs of a RCPP project. Like many other provisions of RCPP, this “contribution” is not the same as “match” on a typical grant. Currently, partners’ contribution must be "substantial," but NRCS in past has interpreted that to mean as little as 10% for some projects.
The bill adds timelines NRCS must meet for signing project agreements and for making reimbursements to partners: no more than 180 days to complete a partnership agreement and no more than 30 days to make payments. For reference, it took almost two and a half years to negotiate EPIC’s partnership agreements.
Permitting reform
Permitting reform is a hot topic in DC and state capitols around the country. EPIC has outlined 9 types of permitting reformas a sort of taxonomy to understand the many different kinds of changes being made at the state and federal levels, and I think it’s a helpful tool to understand what’s going on in the Farm Bill. We see at least three different kinds of permitting reforms within the Forestry Title.
Consolidate or eliminate steps
Most of the permitting reforms in the Farm Bill fall under consolidating or eliminating steps. This is generally a worthwhile strategy but can have tradeoffs. Those tradeoffs may be between two environmental issues, such as reducing fire risk but increasing risk of harming an endangered species. In other cases, it represents tradeoffs between the environment and the economy.
5. The bill creates a new Categorical Exclusion (CatEx) from the National Environmental Policy Act for high priority hazard trees near roads, trails, and developed sites with a 6,000 acre cap.
6. The bill creates a new CatEx for forest management activities on NFS lands to reduce forest fuels.It has a maximum of 10,000 acres, but mechanical thinning is capped at 3,000 acres within that. The internal cap on mechanical thinning–balancing between prescribed fire or hand treatments (more area, less disruption) and heavy equipment (more soil, water, and habitat impact)--makes this more nuanced than a blanket expansion.
7. The bill creates a new CatEx for veg management, facility inspection, and operation and maintenance on electric utility line rights-of-way within NFS and public lands, with a 10,000 acre cap. This is responding to the nexus between utility companies and wildfire, like was seen with PG&E during the Paradise, California fires.
8. Sections 8402, 8403, and 8404 expand three existing CatExs from 3,000 to 10,000 acres. These are for collaborative restoration projects, hazardous fuels reduction, and linear fuel breaks.
9. The sage-grouse and mule deer habitat CatEx gets some technical corrections and is increased up to 4,500 acres in forested ecosystems and 7,500 in rangeland.
10. Again to address the concern about utility lines sparking wildfires, this lets electric utilities cut trees and reduce hazardous fuels near distribution lines on NFS lands without a separate timber sale—which, under current law, require federal appraisals, competitive bidding, and contract administration that can stretch on for years.
11. The timber sale advertising threshold is increased for inflation. Resource Advisory Committees extended. Experienced Services Program permanently authorized. Emergency Forest Restoration advance payments up to 75% (from H.R. 1011). direct hire for Job Corps grads. accurate accounting of accomplishments (from H.R. 204). transparency requirements for Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program
Another of our 9 types of permitting reform is “Utilize data and technology,” and there are some initiatives to develop and implement digital tools for better coordination within the Forest Service.
12. Most notably, H.R. 1213, Forest Data Modernization Act of 2025, was incorporated into this farm Bill text to address some known limitations of long measurement cycles, variance in collection protocols, and data accessibility for non-specialist users. It requires the Secretary to update the Forest Inventory and Analysis strategic plan within 180 days with a plan to implement nationally consistent data protocols, plans to integrate nationally available datasets and commercial tech like remote sensing and spatial analysis, and a protocol to evaluate carbon-related data variables including soil carbon. Also, they must establish an office or data platform to process complex data requests from external orgs. Annual reporting must describe how the program leverages new tech, improves collection protocols & increases workforce capacity. But there is no language requiring the connection between Forest Inventory and analysis data & Forest Plan data.
Promote certainty in permitting processes
These reforms give applicants clear expectations and help projects advance with confidence while maintaining thorough public review.
13. The bill incorporates The FIR Act to clarify that the Forest Service is not required to redo Endangered Species Act consultation on a land management plan if a new species gets listed as threatened or endangered, critical habitat gets designated, or new information reveals that part of the plan may affect a listed species or critical habitat in a way that hadn’t been considered previously. This requirement has been a major source of litigation, and changing it provides certainty that, once a land management plan is completed, it can be implemented.
The question that remains in my mind is “Why is all this sweet, sweet permitting reform exclusively in the Forestry Title?” Why not also relieve some of the burden on conservation staffers providing environmental improvements? It seems like if these reduced steps, use of data, and greater certainty are good ideas in Title 8, similar ones would be a good idea in Title 2 and maybe throughout the bill.
AgARDA and other innovations
One of our priorities for the Farm Bill has been to fund transformative research. While the defense (DARPA), health (ARPA-H), and energy (ARPA-E) sectors have programs designed to facilitate next generation breakthroughs through fundamental research, agriculture has been left out. AgARDA is the proposed solution that was passed into law in the 2018 Farm Bill but never fully funded. Improving its authorization and providing appropriations could do a lot to advance innovation, as would a few other miscellaneous provisions throughout the Farm Bill.
14. Section 7125 reauthorizes the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA) through September 30, 2031. It directs the Secretary to use the strategic plan USDA has created to inform administration of the program. But remember that AgARDA still doesn’t have mandatory funding, and appropriations have so far been only enough to develop the strategic plan.
15. The same section also adds precision agriculture to the definition of agricultural technology for the purpose of AgARDA and further expands the goals of the program to include research on water conservation, drought, infectious diseases, plant and animal pathogens, and plant and animal pests. Expanding the program seems worthwhile, but it doesn’t matter how big the "purposes" list is if it doesn’t have money to operate.
16. The Biden administration hired a Chief Innovation Officer in the Office of the Chief of NRCS to ensure USDA’s continued responsiveness to the ongoing innovation in agriculture and conservation technology. This Farm Bill formally establishes and mandates staffing of an Office of Conservation Innovation within the Chief’s office. But the funding for staffing in this new office will be through the annual conservation operation appropriations to the agency, not provided in the Farm Bill.
17. Perennial production systems are added to the definition of new or innovative conservation approach for the purpose of On-farm Conservation Innovation Trials. This provides an additional avenue for research into emerging production systems that are likely to be better for soil health and potentially more productive.
18. There are new requirements to review the use of third-party technical assistance providers for conservation programs, with the aim of increasing their use. It requires the Secretary within one year to conduct interviews with both existing TA providers and those who may be interested in becoming certified, and the Secretary has to set a goal for how much the department should be using third-party TA providers. Payments to third-party TA providers are newly limited to less than the department would spend to provide the assistance itself. And this subsection specifically emphasizes using third-party providers for “soil health planning, including planning related to the use of cover crops, precision agriculture practices, comprehensive nutrient management planning, and other innovative plans.” This section could open the door for moving to a new model of completing conservation in which there’s less distinction between technical assistance and financial assistance–and more focus on the results they’re providing.
19. The Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production is updated by broadening the types of producer support available–grants, microgrants, and similar assistance–while also reshaping how USDA delivers technical assistance to better fit the realities of urban farming rather than defaulting to frameworks built for traditional rural operations. However, it does not include mandatory funding for the Office.
20. Section 8414 requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to create a “Deployment and Testbed Pilot Program” to conduct on-the-ground testing of emerging wildfire prevention and detection technologies. The suggested technologies seem pretty high-tech (“artificial intelligence, quantum sensing, computing and quantum-hybrid applications, augmented reality, and 5G private networks and device-to-device communications supporting nomadic mesh networks”), but it’s unclear exactly what the pilot will do since it doesn’t seem to have funding or the authority to waive the permitting and procurement requirements that often get in the way of new technology deployments. EPIC’s tech team has written previously on what makes a successful Test Bed.
Taken together, these provisions outline some real progress towards a faster, more innovative federal approach to conservation and forest management. The RCPP fixes are thoughtful, the permitting reforms have some nuance, and the push toward third-party technical assistance could quietly reshape how conservation gets delivered. But a recurring theme runs through nearly all of it: good authorization language without the funding to back it up only goes so far. AgARDA still has no mandatory funding; the Office of Conservation Innovation relies on future appropriations; and the wildfire tech pilot doesn't appear to have the money or regulatory flexibility to do what it's supposed to. The Farm Bill is ultimately about setting direction, and this one does have plenty of provisions that are pointing the right way. The question, as always, will be whether the money and the staff show up to make it real…if it even becomes law.
Questions? Complaints? Want to commiserate on your RCPP project? Reach out to Harry Huntley, Agriculture Policy Lead, at hhuntley@policyinnovation.org.
Thanks also to JR Washebek, Brent Efron, and Reed Van Beveren for their contributions to this piece.
