Nevada committee hears bill to create Healthy Soils Initiative; supporters tout carbon, water and farm benefits

CARSON CITY — The Assembly Committee on Natural Resources opened a hearing Feb. 24 on Assembly Bill 80, which would create a Nevada Healthy Soils Initiative to promote regenerative agricultural practices, establish a voluntary grant program and a state fund that can accept gifts and federal grants, and form a nine-member Soil Health Advisory Board.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblymember Salina LaRue Hatch, said the initiative is voluntary and designed to be run through Nevada’s conservation districts. “This is not a mandate, this is entirely a voluntary program that people can opt into,” LaRue Hatch said. The presentation and testimony emphasized using the program to help producers adopt practices that build soil biology, increase water infiltration and enable the state to draw federal funds.

Why it matters: supporters said healthy soils can store carbon, improve water security and increase on-farm productivity. Jake Tibbets, natural resource manager for Eureka County and a supervisor on the Eureka Conservation District, told the committee formalizing a program would help the state “pull in literally millions of dollars in federal funding” and provide statutory certainty that some funders require. Farmer-rancher Joseph Frey described soil as a living system: “If it's not alive, it's just dirt,” and noted that “for every 1% of soil organic matter you gain about 25,000 gallons of water holding capacity.”

What AB 80 would do: the draft and its amendment (presented at the hearing) would - Define terms (sections 2–5) and align the statutory definition of “producer” with existing statute; - Create a Soil Health Advisory Board (section 6) of nine members including representatives from the Department of Agriculture, the Division of Environmental Protection, the Division of Public and Behavioral Health, four producers (dairy, ranch, specialty/small farmer and irrigated crop), a tribal representative, and a soil research expert; board members would serve without compensation for per diem or travel in the current amendment; - Direct the board to encourage “widespread adoption” of soil-health practices—clarified in the amendment to mean both many producers and many acres (section 7); - Establish a voluntary grant program and allow education and research activities (section 8); - Create a state fund in the treasury to accept gifts, grants, services and donations to support the initiative (section 9); - Require confidentiality for program participants (section 10); - Add repeated clarifying language that tasks are subject to available funding and remove a direct state appropriation (the amendment repeals the previous $250,000 direct ask in section 60). The sponsor told the committee the removal of the appropriation was to avoid fiscal impact on the state and rely instead on federal and private funds where available.

Support and concerns: testimony was broadly supportive. Doug Busselman, executive vice president of the Nevada Farm Bureau, said the Farm Bureau supports a voluntary, incentive-based program and commended the bill’s protections for voluntary participation. Edwin James, general manager of the Carson Water Subconservancy District, said his organization has worked with producers on soil-health practices in the Carson River watershed and supports the bill. Conservation groups including the Sierra Club Toiyabe Chapter, The Nature Conservancy (Nevada), Western Resource Advocates, Nevada Conservation League and local conservation district leaders also testified in support, citing benefits for water quality, carbon storage and resilience.

Several organizations and officials noted concerns or took neutral positions about specifics. The Nevada Department of Agriculture said it is neutral on the bill and appreciated the late amendments developed in consultation with the department. The Water Fairness Coalition testified in neutral and asked that the bill explicitly cover urban soil health; LaRue Hatch replied during closing remarks that the program “does apply to urban producers” and should support soil-health work anywhere in the state.

Process and next steps: presenters said an amendment was produced in consultation with the Department of Agriculture and stakeholders; the amendment rescinds the direct $250,000 appropriation from the bill and adds repeated “to the extent funding is available” language in multiple sections. The sponsor and presenters said the conservation district structure (NRS chapter 548 and the State Conservation Commission) is the preferred delivery mechanism because districts already coordinate with USDA NRCS and local partners.

No committee vote was taken during the hearing. The committee closed the hearing on AB 80 and accepted testimony; members were reminded that proposed amendments and exhibits must follow committee submission procedures. The Department of Agriculture and stakeholders will continue to work on technical language and funding questions as the proposal moves through the legislative process.

Quotes (selected): "This is not a mandate, this is entirely a voluntary program that people can opt into," — Assemblymember Salina LaRue Hatch, sponsor. "If it's not alive, it's just dirt," — Joseph Frey, farmer and rancher. "They are built on that mantra of locally led incentive based conservation, which this initiative is looking to fall within that same framework," — Jake Tibbets, natural resource manager, Eureka County.

Meeting context: the bill was previously introduced in substantially similar form last session (the sponsor said it passed unanimously out of committee last session) and the current iteration removes a proposed state appropriation in favor of leveraging federal, private and donated funds. Committee members asked clarifying questions about definitions and fiscal impacts during the hearing and accepted public testimony from a broad group of agriculture, conservation and water stakeholders. The Department of Agriculture registered neutral and requested continued consultation on technical amendments.

The committee did not take a vote; the hearing record remains open for written comment per committee rules.