Bill Overview
Title: SUSTAINS Act
Description: This bill authorizes the Natural Resources Conservation Service to accept contributions of nonfederal funds to support a broader range of conservation programs. Current law authorizes the service to accept nonfederal contributions of funds to support certain programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program. This bill expands the authority to include other conservation programs, including those that address climate change, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat improvement, and protection of drinking water sources. The bill also makes other changes to the administration of contributed funds, such as by allowing the service to match contributions and permitting contributors to designate funds for use in a specific program or geographic area.
Sponsors: Rep. Thompson, Glenn [R-PA-15]
Target Audience
Population: People working in agriculture benefiting from expanded conservation programs
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill impacts farmers and agricultural producers who participate in USDA conservation programs.
- It expands potential funding for programs related to climate change, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and protection of drinking water sources.
- Contributions can now be designated for specific conservation programs or geographic areas.
- Expanded and matched funding could lead to increased participation and benefits in agriculture sectors affected by climate change.
- The bill might improve sustainability practices and environmental impacts at a global scale due to the wider range of conservation efforts authorized.
Reasoning
- The SUSTAINS Act primarily targets individuals working in the agricultural sector, especially those already engaged in USDA programs like the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program.
- It aims to broaden participation by allowing nonfederal funds to support a wider range of programs that address climate issues, wildlife habitats, carbon sequestration, and clean water protection.
- Though the policy has a substantial budget, it is still limited; hence, not all potential beneficiaries might receive benefits simultaneously.
- The impact varies, with some individuals experiencing significant improvements in productivity and sustainability, while others may see little to no direct impact depending on geographic allocation and program matching.
Simulated Interviews
Corn farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think expanding these programs is crucial for sustainable farming.
- I'd like to see more support in tackling water management.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Vineyard owner (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Financial support for habitats will be great given our challenges with fires.
- Matching contributions could boost our regional conservation efforts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Expanding these programs could help improve grazing practices.
- I'm hopeful that matched funds will target our region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Organic vegetable farmer (Kansas)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although I'm not a participant yet, the program's expansion makes it more appealing.
- It would be beneficial to involve more small-scale farms in these initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Dairy farmer (Nebraska)
Age: 61 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see action on water sources.
- I feel like this will further stabilize my farming operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Aquaculture specialist (Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More green initiatives in aquaculture are needed.
- I'm encouraged by the broader support promised.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Urban farmer (New York)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope green initiatives extend to urban agriculture.
- This policy makes me hopeful for rooftop urban farming sustainability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Potato farmer (Idaho)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this program can provide much-needed assistance.
- I'm looking forward to what this change means for my irrigation issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Soybean farmer (Illinois)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative can enhance soil quality in my areas.
- I'm specifically interested in carbon capture incentives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Fruit orchard owner (Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm eager to see how these changes can improve ecosystems around orchards.
- Increased funding matches could drive regional transformation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $37000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $42000000)
Year 3: $39000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $44000000)
Year 5: $43000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $48000000)
Year 10: $51000000 (Low: $46000000, High: $56000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- Private sector interest and contributions are crucial for determining the actual fiscal impact.
- The amount of federal matching will depend on the volume of private contributions.
- Administrative overhead could rise significantly given the broader scope of conservation programs.