Land Core's FY27 Agricultural Appropriations Priorities
Last week, Land Core submitted our official funding requests to the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Agriculture for FY27.
Across all of our work, we view soil health as a foundational component of agricultural productivity, resilience, and long-term profitability. Our appropriations priorities focus on select USDA agencies and programs that directly support the work farmers and ranchers do on their land, and which we believe are important targets for sustained investment.
Take note of our priority request, the Report Language Request to USDA-RMA, which urges the agency to research and report on the risk-reducing potential of soil health practices like cover cropping, reduced tillage, and rotational diversity, and if found appropriate, develop actuarially-sound premium discounts for producers.
We thank the Subcommittees’ Members for their consideration of our requests and for their ongoing dedication to farmers and rural communities across the country. The Subcommittees’ work to advance and fund federal agricultural programs is essential, and we are honored to contribute to their effort.
Read on for Land Core's FY27 recommendations to align program funding towards advancing soil health, bolstering farm resilience, and strengthening the broader American agricultural economy.
To USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA):
Our Report Language Request: The Committee recognizes that soil health practices, such as cover crops, crop rotations, reduced tillage, and rotational grazing, show promise as practices that reduce indemnities for crop insurance over time. The Risk Management Agency (RMA), in coordination with the Office of the Chief Economist (OCE), Economic Research Service (ERS), and other agencies that may make relevant data available, as appropriate, is directed to provide a report to the Committee on the risk reduction associated with these soil health practices and develop actuarially sound discounts or incentives if appropriate. Importantly, the report shall evaluate these effects over 3-5 year timeframes following the soil health practice adoption, across all relevant commodity crop insurance policies.
Why: The Federal Crop Insurance Program costs taxpayers over $9 billion annually and is a burden likely to grow as rising flood and drought vulnerability drives up indemnity payouts. Assessing how agricultural industries can better manage and reduce these risks is absolutely critical to taxpayer savings. Without a proper understanding of the risk-reducing benefits of soil health practices like cover crops, reduced tillage, complex crop rotations, and livestock grazing, farmers cannot receive the “good soil health discounts” that they might very well be entitled to. Crop insurance is a cornerstone of financial stability. Farmers who invest in soil health practices often experience improved yield stability and reduced weather-related losses, but these gains are not systematically recognized in premium calculations. Directing RMA to assess and integrate these risk reductions would strengthen farm viability nationwide and incentivize voluntary conservation adoption.
To USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Conservation Operations:
Our Funding Request: Restoring funding for NRCS Conservation Operations to its FY25 enacted level ($895,800,000) will help ensure that producers nationwide have timely access to the technical expertise needed to implement voluntary conservation practices and enhance long-term natural resource stewardship across the state.
Why: NRCS staff are critical to helping farmers and ranchers address soil health, water efficiency, and drought resilience through conservation planning and practice implementation. Every dollar invested in Conservation Operations leverages significant private landowner investment in conservation, multiplying the return to taxpayers. Without adequate staffing, NRCS faces longer wait times and backlogs that delay producers from accessing programs they have already been approved for. Restoring funding to FY25 levels ensures NRCS can maintain the field presence needed to meet producer demand across one of the most agriculturally productive regions in the nation.
To USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI):
Our Funding Request: Restoring AFRI funding to its FY25 enacted level of $445,200,000 will help ensure that institutions and producers nationwide continue to benefit from cutting-edge agricultural research, equipping them with the tools needed to sustain a competitive and resilient food and agriculture economy.
Why: AFRI is USDA's premier competitive grants program, funding peer-reviewed research that addresses the most pressing challenges facing American agriculture, from drought resilience and pest management to food safety and rural economic development. Every federal dollar invested in AFRI leverages additional funding from universities, states, and private partners, amplifying the return to taxpayers. AFRI-funded research at institutions nationwide translates directly into practical tools and innovations that help producers remain competitive and adapt to changing conditions. Restoring funding to $445,200,000 ensures that this pipeline of agricultural innovation is not disrupted at a time when farmers face mounting pressures from climate variability, input costs, and market volatility.
To USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS):
Our Funding Request: Maintaining funding in ARS at $1,853,713,000 (FY26 enacted amount) will help ensure that producers and researchers have access to cutting-edge science that enhances competitiveness, supports conservation outcomes, and sustains a resilient and innovative agricultural economy.
Why: ARS is USDA's internal research arm and one of the most cost-effective investments the federal government makes in agricultural innovation, conducting in-house, long-term research that American farmers depend on. ARS research directly reduces production costs, improves pest and disease management, and develops crop varieties that increase yields and resilience, generating returns to producers and consumers that far exceed the program's cost. Maintaining ARS at its FY26 enacted level ensures continuity of multi-year research projects that, if interrupted, cannot simply be restarted without significant loss of scientific progress and taxpayer investment.
To USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA):
Our Funding Request: Restoring FSA funding to its FY25 level of $1,606,700,000 will help ensure the timely delivery of FSA assistance to nationwide producers.
Why: FSA is the primary delivery mechanism for federal farm safety net programs, including commodity support, disaster assistance, conservation loans, and emergency relief, meaning that cuts to FSA's operating budget directly impair the agency's ability to get congressionally authorized dollars into the hands of farmers who need them. Producers navigating drought, market volatility, and input cost pressures need the support of FSA, and adequate staffing is essential to processing applications and delivering assistance without costly delays. Underfunding FSA does not save taxpayer dollars; it creates backlogs that slow delivery of programs Congress has already funded, undermining the return on those larger investments. Restoring FSA to its FY25 level of $1,606,700,000 ensures the agency has the staff and operational capacity to efficiently administer programs that protect American agriculture and rural economies.
To USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and Rural Development (RD):
Our Funding Request: Providing robust grant funding for the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP), $20,000,000 split appropriately between the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP) and the Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG), will help ensure that producers nationwide can access a variety of markets and strengthen their state’s local and regional food economy.
Why: LAMP grants are competitively awarded and require recipients to demonstrate measurable outcomes, ensuring federal dollars are targeted toward projects with the greatest potential to expand market access, increase farm income, and strengthen local food economies. Every LAMP dollar invested in farmers' markets, local food promotion, and value-added enterprises generates economic activity that ripples through rural and agricultural communities, supporting jobs, increasing farm viability, and reducing dependence on more costly farm safety net programs. For small and mid-sized producers who rely on diverse marketing channels to remain economically viable, FMLFPP and VAPG grants provide the capital needed to access new markets and develop value-added products that increase per-unit returns. Increasing LAMP discretionary grant funding to $20 million reflects the strong and consistent producer demand for these programs, which have been chronically oversubscribed relative to available funding.
To USDA’s Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE):
Our Funding Request: Maintaining funding for SARE at $48,000,000 will ensure producers and researchers benefit from ongoing innovation, strengthen farm viability, and support long-term agricultural sustainability.
Why: SARE is one of the most cost-effective federal investments in agricultural research and funds farmer-led, practical, on-the-ground projects that generate real-world solutions and are shared freely across the agricultural community through Extension networks and peer-to-peer outreach. Because SARE grants require collaboration between farmers, researchers, and educators, every federal dollar leverages significant matching contributions of time, expertise, and local resources. SARE-funded projects can help producers adopt practices that improve soil health, reduce input costs, and build resilience to drought and extreme weather, directly strengthening the long-term viability of their operations. Maintaining SARE funding at $48 million protects a proven, farmer-driven research pipeline at a time when agricultural producers face mounting economic and environmental pressures.
The Annual Ag Appropriations Process:
As a reminder, the annual federal appropriations process is the mechanism through which Congress and the President set funding levels for discretionary programs—unlike mandatory spending, which is automatically funded under existing law.
Agricultural appropriations are the federal funding allocations that determine how much money flows to agencies and programs critical to soil health, conservation, and regenerative land management, among other agriculture priorities. These programs provide farmers with direct financial assistance that helps offset the cost of adopting new practices, technical support, and financial incentives to adopt conservation practices, from cover cropping and reduced tillage to nutrient management and managed grazing.
Funding levels are set each fiscal year through the federal appropriations process, in which the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees hold hearings, accept written testimony, and consider funding requests from stakeholders before drafting spending bills.
Advocates, producers, and organizations like ours can engage directly in this process by submitting appropriations requests, meeting with subcommittee members and their staff, and providing data and on-the-ground evidence that make the case for prioritizing soil health programs. For soil health advocates, ag approps are an annual opportunity to ensure farmers have the resources and technical assistance they need to weather economic uncertainty and build resilient operations.
Land Core is a 501(c)3 organization with a mission to advance soil health policies and programs that create value for farmers, businesses and communities. The organization is building the missing infrastructure and market-based incentives that will make the rapid adoption and scalability of soil health possible.