S-3820-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Sponsored by Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
What it does
This bill would direct the USDA to create a formal training program on soil health management for Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) staff and third-party providers who assist farmers. The program would be offered at least twice every two years in each NRCS region, with both online and in-person components. USDA would develop the curriculum through cooperative agreements with outside organizations that have soil health expertise, and would be required to review and update the curriculum every two years.
Who benefits
NRCS field staff and third-party technical service providers who would receive updated, standardized training. Agricultural producers — particularly those interested in regenerative or conservation-focused farming — who would gain better-informed technical advisors. Soil health consulting organizations and academic institutions that could receive cooperative agreement contracts to develop and deliver the curriculum. Farmers in rural areas who currently have limited access to soil health expertise. Indirectly, consumers and communities that may benefit from improved farmland productivity and reduced soil degradation over time.
Who is hurt
Conventional agricultural input suppliers (fertilizer, pesticide companies) whose products may be used less if soil health practices reduce input dependency. Existing NRCS training contractors or curriculum developers who may be displaced by new cooperative agreement partners. Taxpayers who would bear the cost of program development, delivery, and biennial updates. NRCS staff who would be required to participate in additional training, potentially diverting time from other duties.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that NRCS personnel are the primary technical advisors for the roughly 2 million U.S. farm operations that participate in federal conservation programs, and that soil health science has advanced rapidly — including new understanding of microbial biomass and biological nutrient cycling — faster than existing federal training has kept pace. They contend that better-trained advisors would help farmers implement practices that reduce erosion, improve water retention, and lower input costs, producing long-term productivity gains on the approximately 900 million acres of U.S. farmland.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a new, recurring federal training mandate without specifying funding levels or demonstrating that existing NRCS training infrastructure is inadequate, risking duplication of programs already offered through USDA's National Institute of Food and Agriculture and land-grant university extension services. They contend that mandating curriculum development through cooperative agreements with outside "soil health" organizations — rather than USDA's own scientific staff — could introduce methodological bias toward particular farming philosophies, such as regenerative agriculture, that may not be universally applicable across diverse U.S. agricultural regions and soil types.