The Conservation for Agricultural Leased Land Act (CALL Act) requires the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and in collaboration with the Economic Research Service (ERS), to carry out a focused study on participation in conservation programs and adoption of conservation practices on leased agricultural land. The statute prescribes a broad research agenda — from reviewing existing surveys and reports to quantifying lease structures, analyzing regional differences, and assessing how cash-rent competition, tenant turnover, and incentive programs affect conservation outcomes.
The bill matters because leased acres constitute a large share of U.S. cropland and pasture, yet policymakers lack systematically collected, contemporary evidence about why conservation uptake is different on leased versus owner-operated land. The study is intended to produce actionable recommendations — some that USDA can implement now and some that would require congressional action — and to inform outreach strategies for owners, tenants, and extension providers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs USDA (through NASS, partnering with ERS) to conduct a comprehensive study of conservation program participation and the adoption of conservation practices specifically on leased agricultural land. The study must review existing research and Extension initiatives, quantify leasing relationship types, assess incentive utilization, and examine effects of rent competition and tenant turnover.
Who It Affects
Operators who farm rented land (non-owning tenants), non-operating landowners/landlords, USDA statistical and research units (NASS and ERS), Cooperative Extension, and organizations that design conservation incentives or outreach programs. State and local conservation programs and universities are likely collaborators or respondents.
Why It Matters
Leased land accounts for a substantial portion of U.S. cropland; understanding barriers to conservation adoption on those acres could reshape how federal and state incentives are designed and targeted. Results could change program eligibility, outreach, or payment structures and identify where legislative authority may be needed to align landlord-tenant incentives.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The CALL Act orders a targeted, time-bound study: USDA, acting through NASS and working with ERS, must investigate why conservation programs and practices are underutilized on leased agricultural land. Instead of prescribing policy solutions up front, the bill sets out an evidence-building project that compiles prior work, gathers new information on leasing arrangements, and evaluates what has and hasn’t worked across regions and lease types.
Legislatively prescribed content is detailed. The study must review the TOTAL survey and specified prior research (including a named American Farmland Trust report), assess Cooperative Extension efforts, identify and quantify lease structures in current use, and analyze historical ownership trends alongside projections.
It also calls for evaluations of which leasing models encourage conservation, how cash-rent competition influences practice adoption, and what happens to in-place conservation when tenants change.USDA must pay attention to equity and new entrants: the study must give particular consideration to farmers and ranchers who are people of color (including Black and indigenous producers) and to beginning farmers and ranchers. The Secretary may outsource the work through competitive agreements with non-federal entities such as universities or nonprofits, but the statute makes NASS the lead office and ERS a required collaborator.Deliverables are explicit and practical: a report to Congress is due by December 31, 2026, containing study findings and tiered recommendations — (1) changes implementable under existing authorities, (2) items requiring congressional authorization, and (3) outreach strategies.
By design the product is meant to point to operational fixes (changes to program delivery, outreach, or data collection) as well as to identify gaps where new law or resources would be necessary.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires USDA, acting through NASS and in collaboration with ERS, to conduct a study focused solely on leased agricultural land and conservation practice adoption.
The study must review specific research sources, including the TOTAL Survey and the 2020 American Farmland Trust report 'Understanding and Activating Non-Operating Landlords.', USDA must quantify leasing relationship types, analyze regional variations, study effects of cash-rent competition and tenant turnover, and assess state, local, and federal incentive utilization on leased acres.
The Secretary may contract with non‑Federal entities (for example, universities or nonprofits) to perform the study, but NASS remains the administering office and ERS a required partner.
USDA must deliver a report to Congress with findings and recommendations — including items implementable under current law and items requiring congressional authorization — by December 31, 2026.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the 'Conservation for Agricultural Leased Land Act' or 'CALL Act.' This is a purely formal provision but signals the statute's narrow focus on leased land rather than broader land-use policy.
Findings framing the research need
Lists evidence and rationale for the study: notable reliance on the 2016 ERS finding that a large share of cropland is leased, gaps in understanding landlord-tenant dynamics, and the importance of ongoing data collection through the TOTAL Survey. Practically, these findings both justify the study and shape its scope by pointing to the TOTAL Survey and landlord-focused research as baseline sources.
Mandate and required collaboration
Subsection (a) obliges the Secretary to carry out the study; subsection (b) requires collaboration with ERS. That pairing matters operationally: NASS is responsible for agricultural statistics and survey administration, while ERS provides economic analysis. The law therefore couples data collection capacity with analytical expertise, which affects who within USDA will staff and produce the work product.
Prescribed research agenda (contents)
Lists twelve discrete study elements, including literature reviews (explicitly naming the TOTAL Survey and the AFT report), Cooperative Extension reviews, quantifying leasing types, historical and projected ownership trends, effectiveness of leasing models, regional variation, evaluation of federal, state, and local incentives, transition impacts at tenant turnover, and USDA communication strategies. This is unusually granular for a study bill and constrains the study's scope: agencies must address each enumerated item or explain gaps in coverage in the final report.
Equity consideration and reporting requirements
Subsection (d) requires attention to farmers and ranchers who are people of color and to beginning farmers, mandating disaggregated consideration rather than generic treatment. Subsection (e) sets a firm report deadline of December 31, 2026, and requires recommendations grouped into (A) those implementable under current authorities, (B) those requiring congressional authorization, and (C) outreach recommendations—an organizational structure intended to move the study from diagnosis to a menu of potential interventions.
Use of non-Federal entities
Permits the Secretary to enter agreements with non-federal entities (for example, universities or nonprofits) selected through an application process to carry out the study. This creates flexibility for USDA to leverage external expertise and existing data-collection capacity, but it also triggers procurement, conflict-of-interest, and data-sharing considerations that will shape timelines and the final product's methodology.
Definitions and lead office
Defines 'leased agricultural land' as land operated under a lease by someone who does not own the land, and defines 'Secretary' to mean the Secretary of Agriculture acting through NASS. Making NASS the statutory lead clarifies administrative responsibility and signals that the study is expected to rely substantially on survey and statistical methods rather than only on programmatic evaluations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Agriculture across all five countries.
Explore Agriculture in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Tenant operators (non‑owner farmers and ranchers): The study targets the specific constraints tenants face and could produce recommendations reducing barriers to accessing conservation payments or altering lease practices to support long-term practices.
- Non‑operating landowners/landlords: The study explicitly examines landlord awareness and leasing models, which could lead to outreach and incentive designs that make it easier for landlords to support conservation on rented acres.
- USDA program managers and policymakers: Better, lease‑specific data and analysis will allow USDA to tailor conservation program rules, eligibility, and outreach to reach leased acres more effectively.
- Conservation NGOs and technical assistance providers: A comprehensive inventory of barriers and effective leasing models will identify where to target technical assistance and design pilot interventions.
- Beginning and historically marginalized farmers and ranchers: The bill requires particular consideration of these groups, which may result in targeted recommendations and outreach to improve access to conservation programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA (NASS and ERS): The agencies will need to allocate staff time and resources to design and execute the study, manage contracts if outside entities are engaged, and deliver the report within the statutory deadline.
- Survey respondents (landlords and tenants): Additional data collection or follow‑up surveys could impose time and privacy burdens on farmers and landowners asked to provide leasing and conservation practice details.
- Cooperative Extension and universities: The statute expects review of Extension initiatives and allows external contracts; these organizations may be asked to contribute data, case studies, or conduct parts of the research, which consumes institutional capacity.
- Congress (potential future costs): Some recommendations will require congressional authorization; if enacted, those options could carry budget implications for new programs or changes in existing conservation program rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between generating rigorously generalizable evidence and producing practical, timely recommendations: a nation‑wide, representative study that drills into lease contract details and tenant‑landlord dynamics is resource‑intensive and may delay actionable guidance, while a faster or smaller study risks producing findings too context‑specific to guide national program design or legislative fixes.
The CALL Act is a tightly scoped research mandate rather than a direct policy change, but that design creates implementation trade-offs. First, the quality and usefulness of the report will depend on the availability and granularity of lease‑level data; many landlord‑tenant arrangements are informal or undocumented, and existing surveys may not capture key contract terms or incentive arrangements.
If NASS must rely on supplementary targeted surveys, the work will face trade-offs among sample size, geographic coverage, and the administrative burden on respondents.
Second, the bill requires attention to many distinct research questions—lease structures, rent competition, tenant turnover, state incentives, Cooperative Extension work, and equity impacts—which raises risks that the final product becomes a descriptive catalog rather than an analytically rigorous set of causal findings. Translating heterogeneous, regionally specific findings into nationally scalable recommendations will be difficult: what works in cash‑rent counties for row crops may not translate to pasture or specialty crop regions.
Finally, outsourcing parts of the study to universities or nonprofits helps capacity but raises questions about methodological consistency, data-sharing agreements, and potential conflicts between independent research priorities and statutory deliverables.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.