Partnerships for Agricultural Climate Action Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Schrier, Kim [D-WA-8]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 13, 2026
Bottom line
The Partnerships for Agricultural Climate Action Act creates a significant new federal funding stream to incentivize and support climate-smart agricultural practices across the United States, with a focus on equity and traditional knowledge.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a new grant program within the Department of Agriculture to support climate adaptation and mitigation efforts on agricultural lands. It directs the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants to various entities, including state agriculture departments, Tribal Governments, producer associations, and universities, for developing, modifying, or implementing proposals that enhance carbon sequestration, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and build resilience against extreme weather.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill is crucial for empowering agricultural producers to combat climate change, enhance food security, and protect natural resources. They emphasize its focus on locally-driven solutions, support for historically underserved farmers, and recognition of traditional ecological knowledge, which can lead to more effective and equitable climate outcomes.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that the bill creates another layer of federal bureaucracy and spending, potentially duplicating existing conservation programs. Concerns could also be raised about the effectiveness of such grant programs in achieving measurable climate outcomes, or about the federal government's role in dictating agricultural practices.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, allowing for a thorough understanding within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsection (d)(2)
Establishment of Climate Mitigation and Adaptation Grant Program
This provision directs the Secretary of Agriculture to create a grant program. These grants will be awarded to eligible "covered entities" to either develop or modify proposals for climate mitigation and adaptation on agricultural land, or to implement such proposals. This is the core operative mechanism of the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this direct grant mechanism is essential for catalyzing climate action at the local and regional levels, providing necessary resources to a diverse set of organizations best positioned to work with producers.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating a new grant program adds administrative overhead and could be less efficient than expanding existing, proven conservation programs.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for new, targeted climate funding with potential concerns about program proliferation and administrative efficiency.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsection (d)(1)
Key Definitions for Climate Adaptation and Mitigation
This section defines critical terms such as "climate adaptation" (management changes to reduce vulnerability and build resilience), "climate mitigation" (management changes to reduce GHG emissions and sequester carbon), "covered entity" (eligible grant recipients), "eligible proposal" (criteria for projects), "indigenous agricultural knowledge," and "traditional ecological knowledge." These definitions set the scope and intent of the entire grant program.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsections (d)(3) and (d)(4)
Grant Application Requirements and Selection Priorities
This section outlines how covered entities apply for grants, requiring performance measures and allowing Tribal Governments to join other applications. It also details the criteria the Secretary must use for selecting applications, prioritizing proposals with high potential for carbon sequestration, GHG reductions, and increased resilience. It mandates geographical diversity and gives priority to projects benefiting historically underserved producers, promoting whole farm system transitions, supporting additional conservation goals, and utilizing traditional ecological knowledge.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsection (d)(6)
Authorized Activities for Implementation Grants
This provision specifies how funds from implementation grants (for carrying out eligible proposals) can be used. Permitted activities include providing technical and financial assistance to producers, conducting on-farm research and demonstration, offering extension, education, outreach, and training, monitoring soil carbon and GHG reductions, and facilitating producer-to-producer networking.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsections (d)(7) and (d)(8)
Grant Duration, Maximum Amounts, and Federal Share Requirements
This section sets the duration for grants (1-2 years for development/modification, 1-5 years for implementation, both renewable) and the maximum annual amounts ($7.5 million for development, $15 million for implementation). It also defines the federal share: 75% for non-Tribal development, 50% for non-Tribal implementation; and 100% for Tribal development, 85% for Tribal implementation, with a non-Federal matching requirement.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985, by inserting new subsection (d)(13)
Annual Funding and Specific Allocations
This provision appropriates $150,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2026 through 2034 to carry out the grant program. It further mandates that at least 33% of funds support development/modification grants, at least 33% support implementation grants, and 33% of the total funds are reserved specifically for grants provided to applicable Tribal Government authorities.
The bill does not create a standalone new act but amends an existing section of the Food Security Act of 1985, specifically Section 1240H, which relates to the Conservation Technical Assistance Program. It renames subsection (d) to (e) and inserts a new subsection (d) for the new grant program.
Section 2, amending Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3839aa-8)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for integrating new programs into existing statutory frameworks, often to leverage established administrative structures and avoid creating entirely new legal codes.
Case for: Integrating into existing law can streamline implementation and build upon established USDA programs and relationships.
Case against: It can make the bill's full impact harder to discern for those not intimately familiar with the underlying statute.
Estimated impact: Ensures the new grant program operates within the broader context of federal conservation efforts and potentially leverages existing USDA infrastructure.
An "eligible proposal" must be "broadly consistent" with USDA's Action Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience, conservation practices identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to reduce GHG emissions or sequester carbon, and the latest scientific research on regionally-relevant strategies.
Section 2, new 1240H(d)(1)(D)(i), (ii), (iii)
Why it matters:This phrasing is common in legislation to provide flexibility to implementing agencies (USDA in this case) while still setting general guidelines. It avoids overly prescriptive language that might quickly become outdated or impractical.
Case for: Allows USDA and grant recipients flexibility to adapt to new scientific findings, regional specificities, and evolving climate challenges without needing constant legislative updates.
Case against: Critics might argue that "broadly consistent" could lead to inconsistent application of standards or allow for projects that are only marginally effective in achieving climate goals, depending on how USDA interprets the term.
Estimated impact: Gives USDA significant discretion in determining which proposals qualify, influencing the overall effectiveness and direction of the grant program.