The COMPOST Act amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to designate composting as an official conservation practice and activity. The bill defines composting to include on‑farm compost production, the use of community organic waste brought to farms (subject to a ‘‘nearby community’’ test), and the active application and management of compost to improve soil water retention and health.
The statute also inserts composting into the Conservation Stewardship Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program eligibilities and instructs USDA to develop a composting practice standard through its technical‑assistance delivery process. Notably, the bill requires USDA to consult with EPA when defining which communities count as ‘‘nearby’’ and to ensure community feedstock transfers result in net greenhouse‑gas reductions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 16 U.S.C. §3841(j) to require USDA regulations that treat composting as a conservation practice and activity, includes composting practices in CSP and EQIP eligibility lists, and mandates creation of a formal composting practice standard under USDA’s technical‑assistance review process.
Who It Affects
Primary responsibilities fall on USDA (Natural Resources Conservation Service) to write regulations and standards; farmers and ranchers who produce or use compost; and local governments or community programs that supply organic waste to farms under the bill’s "nearby community" test.
Why It Matters
By putting composting into existing farm conservation programs, the bill creates a pathway for technical assistance and potential funding eligibility for compost activities, and it makes soil health and organic‑waste diversion a formal part of federal agricultural conservation policy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by adding a new paragraph to the statutory conservation definitions in the Food Security Act. That new paragraph forces the Secretary of Agriculture to write regulations that explicitly treat composting as a conservation practice and activity for purposes of federal conservation title programs.
The statutory definition is broader than just building a compost pile: it covers making compost from organic waste generated on the farm, accepting organic waste from nearby communities to turn into compost on the farm, and actively applying and managing compost on farmland to improve water retention and soil health.
Operational detail matters here. The bill requires USDA to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to write regulations that define when a community is "nearby" and requires that transfers of community organic waste to farms result in a net reduction of greenhouse‑gas emissions.
That creates two implementation obligations for USDA: (1) a geographic/operational rule for what counts as a nearby community and (2) a methodological requirement or standard to demonstrate net GHG reductions from collecting, transporting, and composting community food/organic waste on farms.The bill also amends program eligibility language in two major conservation programs. It expressly adds "composting practices" to the Conservation Stewardship Program eligibility list and to the list of practices USDA can support under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
Finally, the bill directs USDA’s technical assistance delivery mechanism to develop or review a composting practice standard under its existing process. That means USDA must translate the statutory definition into a practice standard that can be used to design contracts, measure compliance, and authorize payments under NRCS programs.One practical gap in the text is the contrast between the bill’s short title (which references grants and loan guarantees) and the operative amendments, which are regulatory and programmatic — they add composting to definitions and program lists and require standards to be developed, but the bill does not itself create a new grant or loan‑guarantee authority or appropriations.
That omission leaves open whether and how funding mechanisms will follow from these changes, and it shifts the burden of implementation to USDA rulemaking and program design.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends 16 U.S.C. §3841(j) to require the Secretary to promulgate regulations that designate composting as a conservation practice and activity.
Composting is defined to include on‑farm production, accepting organic waste from a "nearby" community for on‑farm composting, and the active use of compost to improve soil water retention and health.
USDA must consult with the EPA when writing regulations that determine whether a community is "nearby" and must ensure that community‑to‑farm transfers result in a net reduction in greenhouse‑gas emissions.
The bill inserts "composting practices" into the Conservation Stewardship Program definition and adds composting practices to the list of eligible practices under EQIP.
USDA is directed to establish (or review) a composting practice standard through its technical‑assistance delivery process, creating the regulatory instrument that program managers will use to implement payments and contracts.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: COMPOST Act
This single sentence gives the bill its name — the Cultivating Organic Matter through the Promotion Of Sustainable Techniques Act — but otherwise has no substantive effect. It does, however, frame the bill’s intent, which is useful when USDA interprets ambiguous statutory language during subsequent rulemaking.
Designate composting as a conservation practice and define it
This is the core change: the bill inserts a new paragraph requiring the Secretary to regulate composting as a conservation practice. The statutory definition is twofold: (1) production of compost from on‑farm organic waste or from organic waste brought from a nearby community for use on that farm, and (2) active management and application of compost on the farm to improve water retention and soil health. The clause on "nearby communities" is procedural — USDA must write regulations, in consultation with EPA, that both define "nearby" and require a showing that accepting off‑farm feedstock yields net greenhouse‑gas reductions. That will force USDA to adopt quantification methods or proxies for GHG impacts and to consider transport logistics, feedstock contamination risk, and permitting intersections with local solid‑waste rules.
Add composting practices to CSP eligibilities
The bill amends the CSP eligibility language to include composting practices alongside other conservation activities. Practically, this signals that composting may be treated as a stewardship activity for ranking, payment, or scoring under CSP contracts. Program managers will need to incorporate composting into CSP practice lists, payment schedules, and monitoring plans, and may need to determine how on‑farm composting interacts with existing soil health or nutrient management practices in CSP plans.
Permit EQIP support for composting practices
By inserting composting into the EQIP practices list, the bill authorizes NRCS to offer technical and financial assistance for composting through EQIP contracts subject to program rules. Implementation will require NRCS to develop practice specifications, cost‑share rates, and inspection protocols for composting practices so that contracts can be written, budgets allocated, and conservation compliance checked.
Direct USDA to develop a composting practice standard
The bill amends the technical assistance delivery provision to require USDA to establish a composting practice standard under its existing review process. That standard is the operational document: it will define acceptable composting methods, siting and design criteria (if any), monitoring or recordkeeping expectations, and compatibility with Federal, State, and local law. The absence of statutory timelines means the pace of creating this standard will depend on USDA priorities and resources.
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
- Farmers and ranchers who adopt composting: They gain a clear statutory basis to access USDA conservation programs for compost production and compost management once USDA issues practice standards and program guidance.
- Community food‑waste and organics diversion programs: Local programs whose feedstock can be redirected to nearby farms gain a new federal policy avenue to legitimize transfer arrangements if they meet the "nearby" and net‑GHG criteria.
- Soil‑health and climate practitioners: Researchers, extension services, and agronomists can scale composting as a recognized conservation tool, strengthening funding and technical assistance opportunities under CSP and EQIP.
- NRCS program planners and conservation districts: The statutory inclusion gives planners an explicit authorization to prioritize composting in conservation plans and to integrate composting into existing program delivery.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA (NRCS): The agency must develop regulations, consult with EPA, create a composting practice standard, and update CSP and EQIP materials — all work that requires staff time and possibly new expertise in organic‑waste lifecycle analysis.
- Small and mid‑sized farms: Farms that accept community feedstock may face new compliance tasks (demonstrating net GHG reductions, meeting practice standards, ensuring feedstock quality) and potential liability or permitting hurdles under local rules.
- Local governments and municipal solid‑waste systems: Municipalities that consider transferring organic waste to farms will need to negotiate logistics, ensure biosecurity and contamination controls, and possibly invest in preprocessing to meet farm standards.
- Program administrators and certifiers: State conservation agencies and third‑party certifiers will need to incorporate composting into inspection regimes and records‑verification processes, which increases administrative workload.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: the bill seeks to expand climate and soil‑health benefits by folding composting into federal conservation programs, but doing so requires technical rules, GHG accounting, and safeguards that are complex and resource‑intensive to implement—so policymakers must choose between a quick, broad designation that risks weak safeguards and inconsistent implementation, or a slower, resource‑heavy rollout that may limit near‑term uptake.
The bill ties several implementation questions to USDA rulemaking without setting deadlines or providing new appropriations. That structure makes the statutory change significant in principle but contingent in practice: whether composting actually becomes a widely supported, fundable practice depends on how quickly NRCS develops practice standards, how it quantifies "net" greenhouse‑gas reductions for community feedstock transfers, and whether Congress or USDA supplies money for incentives.
The statutory requirement to consult EPA on defining "nearby" creates a useful cross‑agency check but also risks procedural delay and potential interagency disagreement about the right GHG accounting methods.
Several practical tensions are unaddressed in the text. Accepting community organic waste on farms raises biosecurity and contamination concerns—especially for farms that grow food crops—yet the bill does not include explicit safeguards for feedstock processing, testing, or restrictions by crop type.
The net‑GHG requirement is a policy needle that will be hard to thread: measurement will need to incorporate collection, transport, preprocessing, and composting emissions versus landfill or anaerobic digestion alternatives. Finally, the bill’s short title references grants and loan guarantees, but the operative amendments are regulatory and programmatic; absent explicit funding authorities, the legal changes create eligibility pathways but not guaranteed financial support, shifting the burden of uptake onto USDA program design and appropriators.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.