SUSTAINS Act: Comment period open on implementing law to accept private funds for USDA conservation programs

USDA is taking comments on a bill that will authorize the agency to accept private contributions to channel through existing USDA conservation programs.

The opening line of the legislation says it is:

“To amend the Food Security Act of 1985 with respect to the acceptance and use of contributions for public-private partnerships, and for other purposes.”

The comment period on how best to implement the “SUSTAINS Act” is open until Sept. 16, 2024.

The House did not vote on the SUSTAINS Act (HR 2606) as an independent piece of legislation. It was added to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023.

Mindy Patterson, the president of the Cavalry Group, an organization that defends the rights of animal owners, has concerns about the bill.

She believes the bill has not been well publicized and said even members of the house don’t seem educated on it.

“I met with nearly every GOP member of the House Ag Committee and several on the Senate Ag Committee recently. I asked them if they’d heard of the SUSTAINS Act, and none but the House Ag Committee Chairman, Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), the sponsor of the bill, was familiar with it,” she said.

Bill co-sponsors are as follows: Rep. Feenstra (R-Iowa); Rep Dusty Jonson (R-South Dakota); Rep. Baird (R-Indiana); Rep. Crawford (R-Arkansas); Rep. Stefanik (R-New York) and Rep. Bacon (R-Nebraska).

Rep. Johnson said private investment can be a helpful tool to American ag producers.  “American farmers and ranchers will always look for ways to improve the sustainability of their operations, whether that be improving soil health or maintaining clean water and wildlife habitat, but the cost of adoption can be a barrier. The type of private investment authorized by the SUSTAINS Act helps producers find and implement conservation practices by allowing businesses to help bear the cost. Private investment in conservation can lead to more environmentally beneficial outcomes across the agriculture and food industry,” said Johnson.

Patterson believes the bill was rushed through, without enough input. “I’m frustrated with how things are going in Congress. These bills are getting fast-tracked without them even knowing about them,” Patterson said.

Her concern with the SUSTAINS Act is that it authorizes the NRCS under USDA to accept contributions of non-federal funds to support conservation programs.

For the government to accept private funds to determine how to manage agricultural land is concerning, said Patterson, especially when the government agency is not elected.

The five-page legislation includes the following language, which puts her on alert: “An easement funded pursuant to this subsection shall be subject to the requirements of the covered program for which the contributed funds were used, except that the Secretary may modify such requirements, as they apply to the easement, for the purpose of addressing climate change, as the Secretary determines appropriate.”

Patterson said open-ended legislation like this can be dangerous.

“It’s difficult to decipher what’s really behind these bills. It’s like solving a riddle. I don’t like riddles and the American people don’t like being lied to. To me this is a straight out attack on rural America,” she said.

“Those private parties could be animal rights groups, they could be environmental extremist organizations, they could be China, they could be John Doe. Then this money goes to a bureaucracy (USDA) to be managed,” she said.

“So you’ve got unelected bureaucrats basically running our country and running farmers and ranchers. And now they are taking money from private parties. This is basically private money influencing government. That’s what public-private partnerships are,” she said.

The USDA news release says that the SUSTAINS Act will use private donations to “expand implementation of conservation practices to sequester carbon, improve wildlife habitat, protect sources of drinking water and address other natural resource priorities.”

Patterson said that, although “conservation” and “sustainability” sound positive to the average American, the terms have been weaponized against landowners to implement policies that reduce food production.

“When people think of sustainability, they think of being good stewards of the land so it can be passed on to future generations. Well, farmers and ranchers are already doing that. The word sustainability has been stolen to be used as a mascot for global UN mandates pushing more renewable energy and restrictions on food production.”

“Under the heading of climate change, the SUSTAINS Act would expand authority to include conservation programs for carbon sequestration, wildlife improvement and more,” she said. “They are already taking farmland out of production for the Endangered Species Act, carbon sequestration, and more,” she said.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association backed the SUSTAINS Act during the session.

 “Beyond the production of beef, cattle operations across the country are a primary tool for environmental conservation, social responsibility, and rural financial health. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association supported the SUSTAINS Act on Capitol Hill, and we plan to submit comments to USDA-NRCS on its implementation. The SUSTAINS Act eases the creation of public-private partnerships that support practical conservation practices, many of which are already being implemented by cattle producers across the country,” said Mary-Thomas Hart, NCBA Chief Counsel.

R-CALF president Brett Kenzy, Gregory, South Dakota, is also concerned about the bill.

“To me, it violates separation of powers, the role of government. R-CALF has fought consolidated corporate power for 25 years and tried to get our government to protect us from that,” he said. “And this seems like a bill that merges the government that has failed to protect us from corporate power with that very corporate power itself,” said Kenzy.

“If that’s not the case, I hope someone can explain to me why I’m wrong,” he said.

“This whole radical climate agenda has swept in like a tidal wave,” Kenzy said.

“Given the text of this bill and the fact all of this passed without debate, my humble ask is this:
At a minimum, let’s lengthen the comment period, and then let’s have a conversation about this,” he said.

Patterson said she sees this bill as an effort to gain more control over the food producers in this country, and to bring the Environmental and Social Governance policy and Natural Asset Companies in through the backdoor. “This is not a noble motive at all. This is driven by a UN agenda that the U.S. shouldn’t be a part of. Many lawmakers from both parties are corrupt, they are taking so much money into their companies and campaign funds, they have fallen prey to the green agenda,” she said.

“They want transparency of farmers and ranchers, how about transparency of government?” said Patterson.