S-5309-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S4520)
Sponsored by Alex Padilla (D-CA)
What it does
The COWS Act of 2026 would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to add "alternative manure management practices" and "composting practices" as eligible activities under the existing Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). It would allow the USDA to pay farmers up to 100% of the costs to plan, design, install, and maintain qualifying practices — such as rotational grazing, compost-bedded barns, solid manure separation, and solar drying — that reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions from livestock operations. The bill would also require the USDA to prioritize small and medium-sized dairy and livestock operations, ensure geographic diversity in awards, and develop new technical standards for on-farm composting within one year of enactment.
Who benefits
Small and medium-sized dairy and livestock farmers who adopt qualifying practices, who could receive up to 100% cost coverage. Beginning, limited-resource, and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, who are explicitly prioritized for the majority of contracts. Groups of producers sharing a composting facility through the new "cluster application" process. Rural communities near livestock operations that may see reduced water and air pollution. Third-party technical assistance providers who would be contracted by USDA to support implementation. Composting equipment and materials suppliers who would see increased demand.
Who is hurt
Large livestock and dairy operations, which are deprioritized relative to smaller farms under the bill's ranking criteria. Operators currently using anaerobic lagoon systems — a common and lower-upfront-cost method — who may face competitive disadvantage if peers receive subsidies to switch away from that approach. Taxpayers who fund EQIP, which would absorb new spending obligations. Biogas and methane digester industries, which are not listed as qualifying alternative practices and could lose ground to competing manure management approaches. Existing EQIP applicants in other conservation categories who may face increased competition for program funds.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that livestock manure — particularly from anaerobic lagoons — is a significant source of methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases far more potent than carbon dioxide over short time horizons, and that EQIP is a proven, cost-effective delivery mechanism for on-farm conservation. They contend that covering up to 100% of costs removes the primary financial barrier that prevents small and medium-sized operations from adopting cleaner practices, and that prioritizing those farms addresses longstanding equity gaps in federal agricultural conservation programs. They further argue that co-benefits — including improved water quality from reduced nitrate leaching and improved soil health from composting — make this a high-value use of conservation dollars.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that paying up to 100% of implementation costs — with at least 50% delivered in advance — represents an unusually generous subsidy structure that could invite waste, fraud, or low-quality implementation, particularly given USDA's existing EQIP backlog and limited oversight capacity. They contend that excluding anaerobic digesters, which capture methane for energy generation, from the list of qualifying practices is a policy choice that favors certain technologies over others without clear environmental justification, potentially locking farmers into practices that may not be optimal for their operations. They further argue that the bill's broad delegation of key definitions and ranking criteria to the Secretary of Agriculture, post-Loper Bright, may invite legal challenges over whether agency-set standards exceed the bill's statutory authorization.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority to fund and condition agricultural conservation payments rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Commerce Clause, both of which have historically supported broad federal farm program authority. Because the bill delegates significant definitional and ranking authority to the Secretary of Agriculture — including determining what counts as a qualifying practice — post-Loper Bright (2024) courts would independently review whether any resulting agency rules stay within the bill's statutory boundaries, rather than deferring to USDA's interpretation.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (USDA/Secretary of Agriculture) gains new rulemaking, payment, and prioritization authority; Congress retains oversight through EQIP appropriations and the Agriculture committees, and courts may independently review agency rules under post-Loper Bright standards.
Historical precedent
EQIP, established by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and expanded repeatedly since, has previously been amended to add specific conservation practices — including the 2018 Farm Bill's additions for soil health and water quality — using the same statutory amendment mechanism this bill employs.