House conservation panel hears case to fold unobligated IRA conservation dollars into farm bill baseline

Members of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation Research and Biotechnology spent a major portion of a Wednesday hearing pressing to convert remaining, unobligated Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) conservation funding into long‑term baseline support for existing farm bill programs.

The subcommittee’s witnesses and leaders argued the move would provide stable, predictable funding for voluntary, locally led programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). "The Inflation Reduction Act require that funding provided by the law for conservation programs could only be used for climate related practices, thereby restricting funding for many other practices otherwise eligible under the program," Chairman Thompson said during the hearing. "By doing so, we, we will have eliminated the climate sideboards and returned the funding to meet an important core principle locally led conservation that benefits all farmers."

Ranking Member Takuda described the IRA investments as a one‑time, large infusion that broke a persistent funding logjam. "The IRA wasn't about business as usual. It was about breaking the log jam," she said, adding that converting the funds to baseline should preserve "urgency, scale, and the recognition that changing conditions require bold action, not modest tweaks."

Witnesses from agricultural and conservation organizations told the subcommittee that demand for working‑lands programs already outstrips available funding and that rolling IRA dollars into the baseline would both preserve gains and expand access. Russell Bonning, president of the Texas Farm Bureau, told members that the chief challenge for producers is gaining entry: "These programs are highly successful, and the greatest challenge for producers is just gaining entry. All of these programs have become increasingly oversubscribed, with demand consistently surpassing available funding." Tim Fink of American Farmland Trust and others recommended the transfer whether or not the IRA sideboards remained in law; they argued increased baseline funding is the single most important tool to expand participation.

Committee and witness testimony also debated the IRA's climate eligibility restrictions. Several witnesses and members said removing IRA sideboards would restore local decisionmaking by state and local committees. As Tim Fink put it, converting the dollars "would enable more farmers to protect their land and implement the very practices they need to build more profitable operations for decades to come."

The policy proposals discussed included language in the Farm, Food and National Security Act reported last Congress and the House reconciliation package that would rescind unobligated IRA conservation funds and reinvest them into Title II of the farm bill. Proponents said that would increase the conservation title's baseline and expand long‑term program capacity. Opponents and some members who spoke elsewhere in the hearing cautioned against losing any programmatic benefits the IRA funding explicitly targeted; proponents said climate‑focused practices would still be eligible after reinvestment but that local priorities should guide spending.

Members and witnesses emphasized that the proposed change does not alter the voluntary, incentive‑based design of conservation programs, which they said underpins producer participation and program success. The subcommittee did not vote on any measure during the hearing; members requested additional materials and signaled continued debate as the farm bill process proceeds.

Ending: Committee staff will accept additional material for the hearing record; members signaled they expect to continue negotiations on whether and how to transfer remaining IRA conservation funds into the farm bill baseline.