COWS Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA]
- Committees
- Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The bill expands federal conservation funding to incentivize farmers to adopt practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve environmental health through alternative manure management and composting.
What it actually does
This bill, known as the COWS Act of 2026, amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to expand the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to include payments for alternative manure management practices and composting practices. It defines these practices, establishes rules for payment amounts (up to 100% of costs with advanced payments), sets prioritization criteria for applications, and outlines new duties for the Secretary of Agriculture regarding technical assistance and conservation standards.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this bill is a crucial step in addressing climate change by significantly reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture, while simultaneously improving soil health and water quality. They emphasize that providing financial incentives and technical assistance will empower farmers, especially small and medium-sized operations, to adopt sustainable practices that benefit both their livelihoods and the environment.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition to this specific bill has been publicly documented. Potential concerns, if raised, might focus on the overall cost to taxpayers for expanding federal programs, the administrative burden on the USDA, or questions regarding the scalability and effectiveness of the proposed practices in achieving significant environmental impacts without sufficient oversight.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, making it accessible for a quick but thorough understanding of its core provisions.
Section 2(a), amending Section 1240A of the Food Security Act of 1985
Definitions of Alternative Manure Management and Composting Practices
This section introduces new definitions for 'alternative manure management practice' and 'composting practice' into the Food Security Act of 1985. Alternative manure management includes methods like pasture-based management, compost-bedded pack barns, and technologies that avoid wet handling of manure, aiming to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Composting practice covers activities to produce and use compost on farms to improve water retention and soil health.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that clear, comprehensive definitions are essential for effectively integrating these climate-smart practices into federal conservation programs, ensuring consistency and clarity for both farmers and administering agencies.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional provisions, as they are foundational for legislative clarity. Potential concerns, if any, might relate to the scope or specificity of the definitions.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in balancing broad applicability with precise technical specifications to ensure the defined practices genuinely achieve environmental benefits without being overly restrictive for diverse farming operations.
Section 3(a)(1), amending Section 1240B(d)(7) of the Food Security Act of 1985
New High-Priority Purpose for EQIP: Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Carbon Sequestration
This provision adds 'increases carbon sequestration or reduces greenhouse gas emissions, including emissions of methane and nitrous oxide' as a new state-determined high-priority purpose for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). This means states can prioritize EQIP applications that specifically target these climate-related outcomes.
Section 3(a)(4), inserting new subsection (h) into Section 1240B of the Food Security Act of 1985
Payments and Contract Terms for Alternative Manure Management Practices
This section establishes specific payment rules for alternative manure management practices under EQIP. It allows the Secretary to provide payments covering up to 100 percent of all associated costs (planning, design, materials, labor, etc.). It also mandates that at least 50 percent of the total payment be provided in advance for materials, equipment, or technical assistance. Contracts for these practices will have a term not exceeding 3 years.
Section 4(3), adding new paragraph (2) to Section 1240C(b) of the Food Security Act of 1985
Prioritization Criteria for Alternative Manure Management Applications
This section mandates the Secretary to develop specific criteria for evaluating and ranking EQIP applications that include alternative manure management practices. These criteria must prioritize applications that maximize carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and overall environmental and public health benefits. Additionally, the Secretary must ensure geographical diversity, scale diversity (supporting small and medium-sized operations), and participation from operations with a track record of conservation. It also allows for 'cluster applications' for shared composting facilities and requires the majority of contracts to go to small, medium, beginning, limited resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers.
Section 5(2), adding new subsection (b) to Section 1240F of the Food Security Act of 1985
Secretary's Duties for Alternative Manure Management
This section outlines specific duties for the Secretary of Agriculture regarding alternative manure management contracts. These duties include determining and publishing factors for estimating carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions, identifying eligible producers based on their current manure management, assisting producers with payments, information, technical assistance, and training, reviewing and revising conservation practice standards, and entering into cooperative agreements with third-party technical assistance providers.
Section 6(3), adding new subsection (b) to Section 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985
Waiver Authority for Payment Limitations
This provision grants the Secretary of Agriculture the authority to waive existing payment limitations (under sections 1001D(b) or 1240G of the Food Security Act of 1985) for payments made under an EQIP contract that includes an alternative manure management practice. This waiver can be applied if the Secretary determines it is necessary to fulfill the objectives of the applicable project, and the Secretary may impose a separate payment limitation for such contracts.
Section 8(5), adding new paragraph (5) to Section 1242(h) of the Food Security Act of 1985
Development of New Composting Practice Standard
This section mandates the Secretary of Agriculture to, within one year of enactment, review existing composting and soil carbon amendment practice standards to assess their adequacy for advancing alternative manure management and on-farm composting. Following this review, the Secretary must develop and implement a new conservation practice standard specifically for the on-farm production of compost.
Conforming amendments and redesignation of paragraphs/subsections.
Section 3(b) and Section 2(a)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure consistency and accuracy in statutory language when new sections are inserted or existing ones are modified.
Case for: Ensures the bill integrates seamlessly into existing law, preventing legal ambiguities or conflicts in statutory references.
Case against: No specific case against, as these are technical adjustments necessary for legislative coherence.
Estimated impact: Minimal direct policy impact, but critical for the legal functionality of the bill.
Waiver authority for payment limitations for alternative manure management practices.
Section 6(b)(1)
Why it matters:While technically phrased, the ability to waive payment limitations is a significant policy choice. It might be placed here to maintain a consistent structure within the existing statutory framework for payment limits.
Case for: Allows for greater flexibility to fund large, impactful projects that might otherwise be constrained by payment caps, ensuring that the most effective environmental solutions are not hindered by financial limits.
Case against: Could lead to increased federal outlays per project and potentially concentrate benefits on fewer, larger projects if not carefully managed, raising concerns about equitable distribution of funds.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it removes a key financial constraint for certain projects, allowing for larger federal investments in individual alternative manure management initiatives.