This bill amends Section 1240H of the Food Security Act of 1985 to establish a competitive grant program through USDA for covered entities to develop, modify, or implement climate mitigation and adaptation proposals on agricultural land. Covered entities include State agriculture agencies, Tribal governments, producer associations, cooperatives, land conservation districts, colleges, and other organizations with an established track record working with producers.
The program emphasizes carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas reductions, and resilience to extreme weather while explicitly recognizing traditional ecological and indigenous agricultural knowledge. The measure sets program terms, selection priorities (including underserved producers and Tribal-led projects), reporting and audit requirements, and conditions on federal cost‑share and administrative spending.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to award grants for two purposes: (1) to develop or modify climate mitigation/adaptation proposals; and (2) to implement such proposals on privately owned agricultural land. It defines eligible activities, allowable uses of funds, partnership options, and program performance measures.
Who It Affects
Primary recipients are State departments of agriculture, Tribal governments, producer groups, farmer cooperatives, land conservation districts, universities, and nonprofit entities that partner with producers. Indirectly affected are farmers and ranchers (including small, beginning, veteran, and socially disadvantaged producers) who would receive technical and financial assistance under funded projects.
Why It Matters
The program channels federal support to intermediaries that can scale conservation practices and integrate indigenous and traditional knowledge into climate strategies. For compliance officers and grant managers, the bill prescribes matching rules, audit obligations, administrative caps, and selection priorities that will shape project design and budget planning.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act inserts a new subsection into the Food Security Act authorizing USDA to award two types of grants through a competitive process: development/modification grants to design or adapt proposals (shorter term), and implementation grants to carry out those proposals on the ground (longer term). The statute gives USDA broad discretion to define eligible proposals but anchors those definitions to USDA’s own Adaptation Actions and NRCS conservation practices and requires proposals to produce at least two outcomes from a menu that includes carbon sequestration, emissions reduction, and increased resilience.
A wide set of organizations qualify as covered entities: state agriculture departments, Tribal governments, producer associations, farmer cooperatives, colleges and universities, conservation districts, and other organizations the Secretary deems to have an established history of collaborating with producers. The bill explicitly authorizes Tribal Governments to join another covered entity’s application rather than file separately.
Applicants must submit performance measures and agree that federal grant funds will supplement—not supplant—their own expenditures.The statute specifies how USDA must run the program: solicit applications shortly after enactment and on a recurring basis until appropriated funds run out; select projects using criteria that prioritize high carbon or emissions outcomes and resilience; ensure geographic diversity; and give priority to projects that direct resources to historically underserved producers or incorporate traditional ecological or indigenous agricultural knowledge. It permits partnerships among covered entities, allows grant funds to pay for technical assistance, financial assistance to producers, on-farm research, outreach, monitoring and producer mentoring, and sets audit and reporting rules for recipients.The bill sets explicit budgetary and program-level guardrails: per-project grant caps, limits on federal cost share (higher for Tribal governments), multi-year grant terms with potential renewals, caps on administrative spending for both USDA and recipients, and a multi-year funding authorization with an explicit split of funds between development and implementation activities and a reservation for Tribal authorities.
Recipients that fail to comply may be disqualified from future awards and must submit annual audits for grant-funded expenditures.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $150,000,000 per year from FY2026 through FY2034 to operate the program.
USDA may award development/modification grants up to $7,500,000 per fiscal year and implementation grants up to $15,000,000 per fiscal year to a single covered entity.
Federal cost‑share caps differ by recipient: non‑Tribal covered entities can receive up to 75% for development grants and 50% for implementation grants; Tribal governments can receive up to 100% for development and 85% for implementation.
USDA must solicit applications within 180 days of enactment and complete selection of grantees within two years; one-third of program funds must support development, one-third implementation, and one-third are reserved for Tribal Government authorities.
Administrative spending limits: USDA may use no more than 3% of program funds for administration; non‑Tribal recipients may spend up to 10% of grant funds on administrative expenses and Tribal recipients up to 15%.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Sets the act’s short title as the 'Partnerships for Agricultural Climate Action Act.' This is a housekeeping provision that frames the statute as a programmatic addition to existing conservation authorities rather than a standalone new agency or regulatory regime.
Insertion of grant authority for climate mitigation and adaptation
Adds a new subsection authorizing competitive grants to 'covered entities' for development/modification and implementation of ‘‘eligible proposals’’ aimed at carbon sequestration, emissions reductions, and resilience. The provision contains detailed definitions of climate adaptation and mitigation, explicitly incorporates traditional ecological and indigenous agricultural knowledge, and links eligible activities to USDA and NRCS guidance to shape what practices will qualify for funding.
How applicants apply and how USDA selects projects
Requires covered entities to submit applications with performance measures, and gives Tribal Governments an opt‑in to join other applications. USDA must solicit applications within 180 days of enactment and on a recurring basis thereafter, and must complete selection within two years. Selection criteria direct USDA to prioritize projects with high potential for carbon and emissions outcomes, increased resilience, geographic diversity, and projects that include dedicated resources for historically underserved producers or use traditional Indigenous knowledge.
Grant terms, eligible uses, partnerships, and reporting
Defines two grant types with different term lengths (development/modification: 1–2 years; implementation: 1–5 years) and allows renewals. Authorized uses include technical and financial assistance to producers, on‑farm demonstration research, outreach and training, monitoring and evaluation, and producer-to-producer networking. Recipients must submit periodic evaluations tied to proposed performance measures, conduct annual audits of grant expenditures, and face disqualification for noncompliance.
Funding authorization, allocation rules, and fiscal guardrails
Authorizes $150 million annually for FY2026–2034, and requires allocation of funding so at least 33% supports development, at least 33% supports implementation, and 33% is reserved for Tribal Government authorities. The statute caps grant sizes per entity, sets federal share ceilings (higher for Tribal authorities), requires non‑federal matching from non‑Federal sources, and caps administrative spending at 3% for USDA and at 10% or 15% for non‑Tribal and Tribal recipients respectively.
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
- Tribal governments — The bill reserves funds for Tribal authorities, allows Tribes higher federal cost‑share (up to 100% for development and 85% for implementation), and gives priority to Tribal projects that use traditional ecological or indigenous agricultural knowledge, improving access to federal climate funds.
- Historically underserved producers and small family farms — The statute directs priority to projects that dedicate resources to beginning, socially disadvantaged, veteran, and small/mid‑sized family farms, increasing their access to technical assistance and financial support through intermediary recipients.
- Producer organizations and cooperatives — These groups qualify as covered entities and can receive multi‑million dollar grants to design and scale programs that reach member producers, positioning them as intermediaries for outreach, on‑farm demonstrations, and financial assistance.
- Universities and extension providers — Institutions of higher education can receive implementation grants for on‑farm research, monitoring, and evaluation, creating opportunities to advance regionally relevant practices and build local technical capacity.
- Conservation districts and NRCS partners — Local conservation districts and entities with a track record working with producers can access funds to run producer-to-producer networks, monitoring, and demonstration projects, strengthening regional conservation delivery.
Who Bears the Cost
- USDA — The agency must stand up a competitive program, establish selection criteria, run solicitation cycles, and manage performance reviews while limited to 3% of program funds for administrative costs, which could constrain USDA staffing and contracting options.
- Non‑Federal covered entities — Applicants other than Tribal governments must provide a non‑Federal share (matching funds), which could be a barrier for smaller nonprofits or local groups without access to private or state funds.
- Grant recipients (administrative burden) — Recipients face audit requirements, periodic performance reporting, and caps on administrative spending (10% for non‑Tribal, 15% for Tribal), which may force tradeoffs between program delivery and compliance costs.
- Producers in projects without direct financial assistance — Because funds can flow to intermediaries, producers dependent on project design choices might not receive direct payments if projects allocate more to technical assistance or research rather than producer financial assistance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a classic trade‑off: concentrate federal resources and oversight on measurable, scalable mitigation and resilience outcomes, or preserve local flexibility and capacity-building by funding smaller, community‑led efforts. It tries to do both—funding large grants and reserving Tribal shares while imposing matching rules, audit requirements, and administrative caps—which will force difficult choices about who can realistically participate and how success will be measured.
The statute aims to balance federal oversight with flexibility for locally tailored solutions, but that balance creates implementation challenges. The link to USDA’s Adaptation Actions and NRCS practice lists gives the agency a constructive anchor but also risks narrowing innovation if the agency interprets those references conservatively.
Performance measures are required, but the bill leaves the content and rigor of those metrics to the Secretary; inconsistent performance metrics across projects could complicate cross‑project evaluation of carbon and resilience outcomes.
The financial architecture mixes generous per‑project caps and multi‑year funding with relatively tight administrative limits and substantial non‑federal matching requirements for non‑Tribal recipients. That design encourages directing funds to on‑the-ground work but may exclude smaller intermediaries that lack matching capital or carry compliance costs.
Reserving a fixed share for development, implementation, and Tribal authorities creates predictability but reduces USDA’s flexibility to shift funds to areas of changing need (for example, sudden regional disasters). Finally, the statutory preference for Indigenous and traditional knowledge is meaningful in principle, but operationalizing respectful, equitable partnerships and appropriate intellectual property and benefit‑sharing practices will require significant agency guidance and trust‑building.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.