A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to consider certain acreage not planted due to a lack of irrigation water to be eligible for prevented planting payments, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 23, 2026
Bottom line
S. 4862 aims to provide financial relief to farmers in drought-prone regions by making unplanted irrigated land eligible for federal payments, while also introducing limitations to prevent perpetual payments for the same unplanted acres.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to expand eligibility for federal prevented planting payments. It specifically includes land that farmers could not plant because they reasonably expected insufficient irrigation water for the crop year, provided the land has existing irrigation infrastructure, was irrigated in recent years, and the crop could not be dryland farmed. The bill also introduces a tiered reduction in payment amounts for consecutive years of prevented planting due to lack of irrigation water, eventually leading to permanent ineligibility.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill provides a crucial safety net for farmers in regions experiencing severe and prolonged drought, where traditional prevented planting rules may not adequately cover losses due to water scarcity. They contend it recognizes the unique challenges faced by irrigated agriculture and helps maintain agricultural viability in affected areas, preventing economic hardship and potential land abandonment.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that expanding prevented planting eligibility could create a moral hazard, disincentivizing farmers from adapting to changing water availability or exploring more water-efficient crops and practices. They may also raise concerns about the long-term fiscal implications of expanding federal payment programs, especially if drought conditions become more frequent and severe, potentially leading to increased government expenditures without addressing underlying water management issues.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick read and understanding its core provisions.
Section 1(b)
Expanded Eligibility for Prevented Planting Payments Due to Lack of Irrigation Water
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Agriculture consider land unplanted due to a reasonable expectation of insufficient irrigation water as eligible for prevented planting payments. To qualify, the land must have functional irrigation infrastructure, have been irrigated in at least one of the previous four crop years with sufficient water, and have had the same crop planted in one of the previous four years. Additionally, the land must not be suitable for dryland farming for that specific crop.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this directly addresses a critical gap in current agricultural safety nets, providing necessary support to farmers whose livelihoods are threatened by increasing water scarcity and drought conditions, particularly in western states.
Critics contend
Critics might argue this could encourage reliance on federal payments rather than proactive water conservation or adaptation strategies, potentially delaying necessary shifts in agricultural practices in water-stressed regions.
Tradeoffs
Balances the need for farmer support during drought with concerns about long-term sustainability and potential disincentives for adaptation.
Section 1(c)
Payment Reductions and Ineligibility for Consecutive Years
This provision introduces a tiered reduction in prevented planting payments for acreage unplanted due to lack of irrigation water. Payments are reduced by 50% for the 5th through 8th consecutive years, 75% for the 9th and 10th consecutive years, and 100% (leading to permanent ineligibility) for the 11th consecutive year and beyond. This aims to prevent indefinite payments for the same unplanted land.
Defines "covered program" as a program to which section 718.103 of title 7, Code of Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation), applies.
Section 1(a)(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice to reference existing regulations rather than re-stating them in full.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provides clarity by integrating the new eligibility criteria into existing, well-understood regulatory frameworks for prevented planting.
Case against: Critics might argue that referencing external regulations makes the bill less transparent to a casual reader who may not be familiar with 7 CFR 718.103.
Estimated impact: This provision ensures the bill's changes apply to the core prevented planting programs administered by the Farm Service Agency, which are significant federal programs.
Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to revise 7 CFR 718.103(e) to explicitly include "a lack of water resulting from drought conditions at the source of an irrigation supply" as a qualifying drought condition.
Section 1(d)(1)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for directing agency action on regulations.
Case for: Proponents argue this clarifies and strengthens the intent of the bill, ensuring that drought impacts upstream of the farm (e.g., snowpack, reservoir levels) are explicitly recognized as valid reasons for prevented planting.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against clarifying regulatory language, though some might view it as redundant if the existing language was already interpreted broadly.
Estimated impact: Ensures a broader and more explicit interpretation of drought conditions for prevented planting eligibility, potentially increasing the number of eligible claims.
Directs the Secretary to revise 7 CFR 718.103(g) to require the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to consult with Farm Service Agency (FSA) county committees and State technical committees when determining natural disasters.
Section 1(d)(2)
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for directing agency action on regulations.
Case for: Supporters argue this provision enhances local input and expertise in disaster determinations, ensuring that decisions reflect on-the-ground realities and specific regional conditions, leading to more accurate and responsive disaster declarations.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against increasing local consultation, though some might argue it could potentially slow down the disaster determination process.
Estimated impact: Improves the accuracy and local relevance of natural disaster determinations for agricultural programs.