SUPPORT FOR H.R. 773 TO REPEAL PROVISIONS OF THE SUSTAINS ACTRELATING TO PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS WITH USDA

ISSUE:

Federal conservation and climate-related programs are increasingly being influenced by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) operating through “Public-Private Partnerships” with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). These partnerships allow outside activist organizations and private entities to exert influence over agricultural policy, conservation priorities, land management practices, and funding decisions affecting America’s farmers, ranchers, and rural landowners

American Agri-Women Request:

We urge Congress to support H.R. 773, introduced by Congresswoman Harriet Hageman (R-WY).

H.R. 773 repeals provisions allowing USDA to accept and utilize contributions from private entities for public-private conservation partnerships. The legislation seeks to prevent outside organizations from leveraging federal agencies and taxpayer-funded programs to advance climate and land-use agendas that negatively impact agriculture producers and rural communities.

America’s farmers, ranchers, and landowners should not be subjected to activist-driven agendas disguised as conservation partnerships. Federal conservation programs must remain focused on supporting agricultural production, protecting private property rights, and preserving the independence of rural communities. Congress must ensure that USDA programs serve the interests of American producers and the nation’s food security—not the political objectives of outside organizations.

And Congress must restore transparency, accountability, and Congressional oversight to USDA conservation programs and ensure that federal agricultural policy is driven by producers and elected representatives—not outside activist organizations or unelected NGOs.

Background: The SUSTAINS Act expanded USDA’s authority to accept contributions from private organizations to advance conservation initiatives and climate-related projects. While promoted as collaborative partnerships, these arrangements often create pathways for activist-driven agendas to infiltrate federal agricultural programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and related agencies.

Many of these initiatives are marketed as “voluntary” conservation opportunities. However, producers are increasingly finding themselves tied to complicated agreements, restrictive easements, compliance obligations, and long-term land use limitations connected to climate programs and federal incentives.

Public-private partnerships within USDA conservation programs have increasingly blurred the line between federal governance and activist influence. Through grants, partnerships, and cooperative agreements, environmental organizations are able to shape conservation priorities and land-use strategies affecting private property owners across the country. These programs often incentivize participation through subsidies and cost-share programs, while creating long-term obligations and regulatory exposure for producers. In many cases, farmers and ranchers are pressured into programs that may ultimately limit their operational flexibility, diminish property rights, or subject their land to future restrictions.

American Agri-Women believes conservation efforts should remain locally driven, science-based, transparent, and respectful of private property rights—not controlled by outside organizations promoting ideological agendas.

Examples of Concern:

• Climate-Smart Agriculture Programs: Federal and NGO-funded initiatives tied to carbon markets and CO₂ pipeline infrastructure may subject producers to restrictive contracts and evolving climate compliance requirements.

• Wildlife Corridor Expansion: Conservation partnerships increasingly promote habitat connectivity projects that can interfere with grazing, fencing, water access, and agricultural land use.

• Water and Watershed Programs: Federal conservation partnerships have been used to advance water management strategies that bypass local authority and threaten longstanding irrigation and water use practices.

• Permanent Conservation Easements: Producers are often encouraged to place land into perpetual easements that may permanently reduce agricultural productivity and future land-use options for subsequent generations.

These programs frequently create long-term encumbrances on private property while empowering organizations that are not accountable to taxpayers or rural communities. We believe that federal agricultural policy should support the people who produce America’s food, fiber, fuel and energy – and not empower outside organizations seeking to reshape rural America through regulatory pressure and financial influence.