SOIL Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The SOIL Act aims to boost farmer participation in conservation efforts by offering higher payments for practices that yield dual benefits for soil and wildlife, potentially accelerating environmental improvements on agricultural lands.
What it actually does
This bill, the 'Saving Our Interconnected Lives Act' or 'SOIL Act,' amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to increase financial incentives for agricultural producers to adopt conservation practices that simultaneously benefit both soil health and wildlife habitat. It raises the federal cost-share for eligible practices under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) from up to 75% to 90% and introduces supplemental payments for 'co-benefit activities' under the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). The bill also modifies how applications are evaluated and prioritized in both programs to favor projects addressing both soil and wildlife habitat concerns.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill provides a crucial incentive for farmers to adopt more holistic conservation practices, recognizing the interconnectedness of soil health and wildlife habitat. By increasing the federal cost-share, it makes these beneficial practices more financially accessible, encouraging broader adoption and leading to significant environmental gains, including improved biodiversity, water quality, and carbon sequestration. Supporters believe this targeted approach will maximize the impact of existing conservation programs.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that while the goals are laudable, increasing payment rates for specific practices could strain existing program budgets, potentially reducing the total number of producers or acres that can be served if overall appropriations do not increase. Critics could also argue that focusing on 'co-benefit activities' might inadvertently deprioritize other important conservation needs that do not fit this specific dual-benefit criterion, leading to an imbalance in conservation efforts.
The bill is short and relatively easy to read, allowing for a quick understanding of its core changes within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a)
Increased EQIP Payments for Soil and Wildlife Co-Benefit Practices
This provision amends the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to increase the federal payment rate for producers undertaking practices that simultaneously benefit both soil health and wildlife habitat. Instead of the standard payment rate (which is generally up to 75% of costs), producers will receive 90% of the costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training for a specified list of co-benefit practices. This aims to make these practices more financially attractive.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the higher payment rate directly incentivizes farmers to adopt practices that yield significant environmental benefits for both soil and wildlife, which are often overlooked due to upfront costs. This financial boost makes it easier for producers to invest in long-term sustainability.
Critics contend
Some might argue that while beneficial, increasing the payment rate for a subset of practices could lead to a disproportionate allocation of EQIP funds, potentially reducing the overall number of projects or the diversity of conservation needs addressed if the total program budget remains constant.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves balancing the desire to maximize specific co-benefits with the need to address a broad range of conservation concerns within a finite budget. Higher payments per practice might mean fewer total practices funded if demand outstrips supply.
Section 2(b)
Clarification of EQIP Habitat Resource Concern
This section modifies the language in the Food Security Act of 1985 regarding the establishment and administration of EQIP. It changes a reference from 'practices benefitting wildlife habitat under subsection (g)' to 'practices within projects that address a habitat resource concern.' This clarifies that the focus is on projects that address habitat issues as a resource concern, aligning with the bill's broader emphasis on integrated soil and wildlife benefits.
Section 2(c)
EQIP Application Prioritization for Co-Benefit Projects
This provision adds a new criterion for evaluating and prioritizing applications under EQIP. Applications that are developed specifically to address both a soil and wildlife habitat resource concern will receive higher priority. This ensures that projects aligning with the bill's dual-benefit focus are more likely to receive funding.
Section 3(a)
CSP Contract Offer Evaluation and Ranking for Co-Benefit Projects
This section amends the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to include a new criterion for evaluating and ranking stewardship contract offers. Specifically, the 'degree to which the project addresses both soil and wildlife habitat resource concerns' will now be a factor in determining which contracts are selected. This mirrors the EQIP changes by giving preference to projects that integrate both soil and wildlife benefits.
Section 3(b)
CSP Supplemental Payments for Co-Benefit Activities
This provision amends CSP to introduce supplemental payments for 'co-benefit activities.' A 'co-benefit activity' is defined as a conservation activity that addresses both soil and wildlife habitat resource concerns, and if implemented, improves wildlife habitat and increases soil carbon sequestration while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This creates an additional financial incentive for producers to undertake these specific, high-impact activities within their CSP contracts.