The Saving Our Interconnected Lives (SOIL) Act amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to steer federal conservation dollars toward practices that jointly improve soil health and wildlife habitat. It does so by changing payment rules and program priorities in two USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
For producers, the bill raises the federal share of covered costs for projects that address both soil and wildlife concerns and creates a new category of eligible activities in CSP—“co-benefit activities”—that explicitly link habitat outcomes with increased soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions. For NRCS and program administrators, the bill inserts new ranking criteria and administrative language that prioritize joint soil-wildlife projects, shifting how applications are evaluated and how funding is targeted.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires NRCS to give higher-cost support for conservation practices that simultaneously improve soil and wildlife habitat, and to prioritize applications and supplemental CSP payments for projects designed to address both resource concerns.
Who It Affects
Producers and landowners enrolling practices in EQIP and CSP, NRCS program managers who will apply new ranking and payment rules, and federal budget offices that fund these cost-share and supplemental payments.
Why It Matters
The bill reorients conservation incentives toward integrated outcomes (soil carbon plus habitat), increases the federal portion of eligible costs for those projects, and creates explicit programmatic priorities that can change which practices receive funding and how NRCS allocates limited resources.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SOIL Act rewrites parts of the Food Security Act to make combined soil-health and wildlife-habitat outcomes an explicit focus of federal agricultural conservation dollars. Rather than treating wildlife habitat and soil conservation as separate program goals, the bill asks NRCS to recognize and reward practices that generate both benefits.
The change is programmatic: it alters payment and ranking rules inside existing conservation programs rather than creating a new grant program.
Under the bill, NRCS must identify projects that address both soil and wildlife concerns and treat those projects as a distinct category for higher support. The text covers the full range of project costs—planning through training—and removes a prior constraint by telling the agency to provide expanded payments for qualifying projects.
NRCS also receives a clear instruction to factor a project’s dual-purpose design into its application scoring and prioritization processes.On the CSP side, the bill creates a new concept—“co-benefit activities”—and ties that concept to two measurable outcomes: improving wildlife habitat and increasing soil carbon or reducing greenhouse gases. CSP’s supplemental-payment rules are expanded to include those co-benefit activities, and the program’s offer-evaluation criteria add an explicit preference for stewardship proposals that address both soil and wildlife needs.
Taken together, the amendments push producers toward integrated conservation planning and give NRCS discretion to prioritize multi-benefit projects when funds are limited.The practical effect is a policy nudge: by increasing the federal contribution and elevating joint-outcome projects in ranking systems, the bill increases the financial attractiveness of conservation practices that deliver both habitat and soil benefits. Implementation will require NRCS to operationalize new definitions and scoring criteria, and to design monitoring or documentation protocols to confirm that projects actually deliver the claimed co-benefits.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs NRCS to pay 90 percent of eligible project costs (planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training) for practices identified as addressing both soil and wildlife habitat.
It adds a 26-item, enumerated list of eligible practices (examples include alley cropping, cover crops, contour buffer strips, riparian forest buffers, wetland restoration, no-till/reduced till, grassed waterways, windbreaks, hedgerow planting, and rotating crops).
The EQIP language explicitly directs the Secretary to treat projects that address both soil and wildlife concerns as a priority category and replaces narrower phrasing about wildlife-only practices with broader 'habitat resource concern' language for program administration.
CSP evaluation and ranking are amended to add the degree to which a stewardship offer addresses both soil and wildlife resource concerns as an express scoring criterion.
The bill defines 'co-benefit activity' in CSP to require (A) that the activity addresses both soil and wildlife resource concerns and (B) that, if implemented, it improves wildlife habitat and increases soil carbon sequestration and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and it authorizes supplemental CSP payments for such activities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s name: the 'Saving Our Interconnected Lives Act' or 'SOIL Act.' This is a standard nicety; it has no operative effect on program rules but sets the statutory label used in cross-references.
Higher cost-share for combined soil and wildlife practices
Adds a new paragraph to the EQIP statutory provisions that requires the Secretary to provide payments covering 90 percent of eligible project costs for practices that 'simultaneously benefit both soil and wildlife habitat.' The text lists eligible cost categories (planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, and training) and enumerates an extensive list of eligible practices. The insertion uses 'notwithstanding paragraph (2),' indicating it is meant to supersede an earlier cost-share rule in certain cases. Practically, this is a direct increase in the federal contribution for qualifying projects, but it also makes the Secretary’s role pivotal because projects must be 'identified by the Secretary' as addressing both resource concerns.
Program language and prioritization changes
Modifies existing EQIP administration wording to broaden the scope from 'practices benefitting wildlife habitat' to 'practices within projects that address a habitat resource concern,' which expands the statutory focus and gives NRCS flexibility to treat habitat as a broader category. The bill also amends the application evaluation criteria so that applications developed specifically to address both soil and wildlife resource concerns receive explicit consideration in the prioritization process. Those two edits together reframe how EQIP project lists and ranking pools will be constructed.
Adds joint soil-wildlife scoring factor
Inserts a new scoring factor into CSP’s offer-evaluation provisions requiring reviewers to consider 'the degree to which the project addresses both soil and wildlife habitat resource concerns.' This change makes combined outcomes a formal part of CSP’s competitiveness criteria and should influence which offers receive contracts when funding is constrained.
Defines 'co-benefit activity' and expands supplemental payments
Expands CSP’s statutory language to define a 'co-benefit activity' as a conservation activity that addresses both soil and wildlife concerns and that, if implemented, improves habitat and increases soil carbon sequestration while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The bill amends the list of activities eligible for supplemental payments to include these co-benefit activities and updates the statutory heading to reflect that change. This creates a direct statutory link between habitat outcomes and climate-related soil carbon benefits in CSP’s payment architecture.
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
- Producers and landowners implementing integrated conservation practices — they receive a larger federal share of costs (making multi-benefit projects more financially attractive) and improved chances of receiving funding through the programs’ updated prioritization.
- Wildlife and habitat conservation organizations — funding shifts toward projects that explicitly include habitat outcomes, increasing the pool of land under habitat-friendly practices.
- Partners that support conservation implementation (e.g., conservation districts, technical assistance providers, ecological consultants) — higher payment rates and a focus on co-benefits can boost demand for planning, design, and monitoring services.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA/NRCS and federal budget authorities — higher cost-share levels and supplemental payments raise program expenditures per project, creating potential budgetary pressure or requiring reallocation of limited funds within EQIP and CSP.
- NRCS program offices and local field staff — the agency must operationalize new definitions, adjust ranking tools, verify co-benefits, and document outcomes, increasing administrative work and the need for new guidance and training.
- Producers who continue to pursue single-resource practices — with preferences shifted toward combined-outcome projects, single-issue conservation efforts may drop in ranking or receive less funding unless they can be tied into co-benefit designs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is this: the bill increases payments and priority for projects that deliver both soil health and wildlife habitat benefits—boosting adoption of integrated practices—but it does so without increasing program budgets or providing detailed measurement rules, forcing a trade-off between funding fewer, better-paid multi-benefit projects and funding more, smaller single-benefit projects, while leaving much of the verification burden to NRCS discretion.
The bill sets a clear policy direction—favor multi-benefit conservation—but leaves several implementation-critical details to agency rulemaking and guidance. It requires the Secretary to 'identify' projects and to provide 90 percent payments for qualifying practices, yet the text does not specify how the Secretary should evaluate or certify that a given practice or project genuinely produces both soil and wildlife benefits.
That opens questions about documentation requirements, monitoring protocols, and verification timelines. Without standardized metrics, NRCS reviewers will face discretion-driven choices that could vary across states and field offices.
Another tension is fiscal: higher per-project payments increase incentives for adoption but reduce the number of projects funded under a fixed appropriation, or they require additional funding. The bill does not adjust program funding levels, so implementation choices will have distributional consequences—prioritizing high-cost, high-benefit projects may come at the expense of lower-cost projects that nonetheless yield important conservation outcomes.
Finally, the bill ties CSP supplemental payments to soil carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas reductions. Measurement of soil carbon at scale is technically and administratively complex, and the statute’s simple link to sequestration raises questions about baseline setting, permanence, leakage, and verification that federal managers will have to resolve.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.