Support Urban Agriculture with H.R. 5804

Urban Agriculture in the 2018 Farm Bill

The 2018 Farm Bill took a major step forward by creating the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP), an advisory committee that gives the public a voice in shaping federal policy, and a pilot program for urban county committees in select cities. The law authorized up to $25 million a year through 2023 to support their work. Congress funded the program each year, but always below the $25 million cap.

The old Farm Bill expired. Now what?

The 2018 Farm Bill expired in 2023. Since then there hasn’t been a new Farm Bill, but Congress continued to fund urban ag anyway, by “appropriating to an expired authorization.” That’s a legal and fairly common workaround, but not ideal. It leaves the program without a recent policy mandate, which makes it more vulnerable to shifting political priorities.

Now, a new bill—H.R. 5804—would reauthorize the urban agriculture programs through 2030 and raise the funding cap to $50 million. It was introduced by Robert Menendez of New Jersey. As of this date it has five co-sponsors and a catchy name, as spelled out in the bill itself:

This Act may be cited as the “Providing Robust Organics and Diets for Urban Communities Everywhere Act” or the “PRODUCE Act”.

H.R. 5804 is a marker bill.

The bill nails down some basic issues — reauthorization and funding cap — but nothing more. In time it can be fleshed out, but the first goal of a marker bill is to flag an issue and gather allies. Most marker bills are introduced mainly to signal policy priorities, stake out a position, or influence future negotiations rather than to become law themselves. The vast majority never move out of committee or receive a floor vote.

A stronger, more detailed version of 5804 may become part of the next Farm Bill, but the first priority if this bill is to survive its time in committee and prevail in a floor vote is to build support for it now.

What Next?

Congress needs to know that there is backing for a strong urban ag presence in the Farm Bill and hence in the USDA. Here’s what I got from ChatGPT — ya, I cheat 😉

Early support matters more than early detail.
A bill with a small number of sponsors tends to vanish; one with visible bipartisan or cross-regional support gets attention.
Thank-you letters and recruitment outreach help normalize the idea that this reauthorization is important and popular.
Educational outreach now (to urban agriculture advocates, farm organizations, environmental groups, etc.) builds the base of people ready to speak up when the strengthening phase comes.
Once support is established, policy suggestions for improvement (e.g., expanding eligible activities, providing technical assistance, ensuring stable funding mechanisms) will carry more weight.

And how do we do that? More from ChatGPT:

Letters of appreciation to the sponsor and current co-sponsors.
Outreach to potential co-sponsors, especially members on the House and Senate Agriculture Committees.
Educational briefings or one-pagers explaining why urban agriculture needs a reauthorized and improved OUAIP.
Build a network of endorsers—local governments, nonprofits, and farm organizations willing to sign a support letter later.
Begin drafting recommendations for what a “strengthened” version would include, but hold them until the bill gains traction or heads to markup.

Join the Discussion on Urban Agriculture Recommendations

At its September 17 meeting, the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee introduced five new recommendations to support urban agriculture. The Committee will revisit them—and may even vote—at its next meeting on September 24.

This is a key moment to make your voice heard. Your input can help shape national policy for urban agriculture. You can share your perspective by emailing the Committee, and in some cases you may also have the chance to give a brief comment during the meeting itself.

Details on how to register, attend online, and submit comments or questions are available in the Federal Register.

Proposed Recommendation #1

Permanent Federal Advisory Committee for Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production

Establish a discretionary and permanent federal advisory committee for urban agriculture and innovative production.

Proposed Recommendation #2

Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants

Release a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants for Fiscal Year 2025

Proposed Recommendation #3

FSA Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Grants

Authorize the Farm Service Agency (FSA) Urban/Suburban County Committee (UCOC) program to be permanent instead of a pilot project and adjust responsibilities of the program to better match existing County Committees.

The current list of 27 cities should have full and active UCOCs. The committees are made up of three to 11 members who serve three-year terms.
Resources to support the operations and activities of UCOCs should be provided by FSA.
Collaboration and engagement with local FSA Urban Service Center staff should be supported by FSA and NRCS.

Proposed Recommendation #4

USDA Urban Service Centers: Urban Agriculture Technical Assistance

Integrate dedicated USDA staff with specialized technical expertise in the USDA Urban Service Centers where the Urban County Committees (UCOC) are, to improve technical assistance, outreach, and opportunities relevant to urban agriculture and innovation producers/growers.

Staff should make joint site visits to urban farms with other FSA and NRCS Service Center representatives to provide specific guidance on indoor or other emerging production practices.
Staff should provide specific guidance to eligible urban farmer entities to help them better apply for FSA and NRCS programs such as establishing a farm record and applying for program support.
Solidify engagement with staff and UCOC Board Committees to gather insight and feedback on needed modifications to FSA and NRCS program eligibility guidelines and resources in the service centers to better serve the breadth of urban agriculture and innovative growers and producers.
Solidify formal partnerships with community-based organizations and technical assistance providers to expand the impact of Urban Service Centers’ outreach and work with demonstration farms for more hands-on, peer-to-peer technical assistance.

Proposed Recommendation #5

Proposal for Grant Funding to Build Evidence-Based Urban Agriculture Programs

The Committee recognizes that urban agriculture has the potential to contribute significantly to economic and workforce development, youth education, healthy food access, and community health. However, the current evidence base is fragmented and insufficient to guide both large-scale federal programs and policies and local policies, programs, and businesses. To ensure that future investments are effective, scalable, and grounded in data, the Committee emphasizes the need for dedicated research funding, structured pilot programs with strong evaluation components, and improved national data collection.

The Committee recommends that USDA, in coordination with HHS and DOE, establish integrated research and education competitive grant programs to support rigorous research on the impacts of urban agriculture on youth education, community development, workforce development, food access, and health outcomes.
The Committee recommends that federal agencies fund pilot programs in urban agriculture that require partnerships between community organizations and institutions of higher education with built-in evaluation components, ensuring that findings generate reliable evidence to inform future program development and federal policy guidance.
The Committee recommends that USDA expand national data collection efforts, including through ERS and the Census of Agriculture, to quantify the scope of urban agriculture activities, practices and outcomes, and to support partnerships with universities and Extension for longitudinal and generalizable research.

Advocating for Permanent Urban Agriculture Committee

Today the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Federal Advisory Committee is holding the second of 3 meetings to be held this year. In the first meeting, last week, they took oral public comments. I requested that they make the Committee permanent rather than requiring that it be renewed every two years as is currently the case.

I requested that they make the Committee permanent rather than requiring that it be renewed every two years as is currently the case.

At today’s meeting, in progress as I type, Committee members are presenting draft recommendations on which they’ll vote at next week’s meeting, the last for the year. Guess what the first recommendation was:

Woohoo! See, I told you they listen to public comments. They also pay attention to comments submitted by mail. More info here.

To be continued…

Why the UAIPAC Matters for Urban Agriculture Today

Nobody loves a committee, right? But yesterday the Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee (UAIPAC) held the first of three meetings for September, and I attended. I love this committee. It’s the public’s direct voice to U.S. policy for urban agriculture.

Federal Advisory Committees Are Being Weeded Out

UAPIAC is one of many committees created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972. At that time there were more than 3,000 committees costing tens of millions of dollars annually, with no centralized system to evaluate whether they were still needed. FACA changed that. Now there is more care taken that the committees be transparent, that representation on the committee be balanced, and that their work be regularly reviewed to ensure they’re still necessary. That means committees can be eliminated–and they are.

In 1972, when FACA was passed, there were over 3000 advisory committees. By the mid 70s fewer than half were left. Since then there’s been slow churn of advisory committee creation/renewal/termination — right up to this year when President Trump issued an order in February to reduce the size of the federal bureaucracy. “Federal Advisory Committees within the Department of Agriculture” made the hit list. As it turns out, UAIPAC isn’t named there, but I’m not totally reassured. There’s still a lot of other evidence that urban ag is on shaky ground at the USDA.

UAIPAC Threatened?

I was already worried before I knew that USDA advisory committees were in jeopardy. A year ago today, committee member Ted Fang died and has yet to be replaced. For the first several months of 2025 there were no committee meetings despite a statutory requirement that there be at least 3 a year.

In May the director of the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production (OUAIP), Brian Guse, left and has still not been replaced. This is troubling all by itself, but it also has ramifications for the Committee. The director of OUAIP is the designated federal office (DFO) for the Committee — without a DFO the Committee can’t meet. The fact that the director left, that he wasn’t replaced, and that no one was designated to replace him to manage the Committee was disturbing.

UAIPAC Needs to Stay

I attended yesterday’s first meeting of the year to say how important it is to keep the Committee functioning, preferably on a permanent basis. Most advisory committees are routinely reviewed– churn is the norm, but there are exceptions. The National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), for example, does not rely on biennial renewals as does UAIPAC.

Yesterday’s Meeting Was Reassuring

Markus Holliday, Coordinator of the Committee and (at last) Acting Designated Federal Officer, kicked off the meeting and introduced Aubrey Bettencourt, Chief of the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), appointed in March. She’s from our own Central Valley.

My notes on her comments are… inadequate, but she seemed supportive of both urban agriculture and innovative production, and spoke favorably about farm-to-school programs, innovation production methods, high tunnel grants, food hubs, regional markets, consumer education and even scratch cooking — if you’re gonna buy direct from a local farm, you’re gonna have to cook the stuff yourself. She hit all the right notes.

A Sampling of Attendee Concerns

The public comments that followed give you some sense of the background and concerns of attendees. Here’s a sampling:

Hanna Quigly, a policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, enumerated ways in which the NRCS could improve the operation of their Urban Service Centers, including by fully funding and staffing all centers and ensuring their staff are trained in the unique needs of urban farmers.
Robert Hickerson of Tableview Farm in Kansas told how he has benefited from a USDA grant to pay for his first high tunnel and from a farm-to-school grant that enables a local public school system to buy from him.
Catherine Fleming of Project Sweetie Pie in Minneapolis, Minnesota, brought up the issue of zoning, often a stumbling block for growing in the city, and one of the areas where the USDA might be able to provide guidance for cities whose planners are not necessarily well-versed in agriculture issues.
Chetna Naimi of Codman Square Health Center in Dorchester, Massachusetts talked about a new addition to the Center’s summer intern program, an Urban Agriculture and Climate Resilience track. Interns work in Codman’s community gardens, help manage a youth-led farmers market, and explore the intersection of farming and renewable technologies .

Attend a Meeting, Make a Comment

There are two more meetings this month, thus fulfilling the requirement for 3 per year all in one grand whoosh. At the next meeting members have been asked to propose recommendations for the Secretary of Agriculture. I’m curious to know what they’ll come up with.

Read more here about attending a meeting or making a comment, either oral or by email.

This is the comment I made:

Hello. My name is Cindy Cotter. I’m a member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project, and I support urban agriculture as an essential response to climate change. I’m a retired education bureaucrat new to both activism and agriculture, and the learning curve has been steep. I’ve spent a lot of time attending webinars, reading books, listening to podcasts, and just generally fumbling about trying to find my tribe. And here you are!

That’s my primary point for today: The existence of this Committee is important not only because it allows urban growers and food system stakeholders to provide input directly to USDA—which is pretty exciting in itself—but also because it helps build something larger—a national community of interest around urban agriculture. For those of us working in cities, that sense of connection and shared purpose is invaluable.

So… I have two specific requests.

First, I urge USDA to ensure the continuation of this Committee. At the very least, it should be renewed without interruption when the current charter expires. Better yet would be to make it a permanent advisory body. Urban agriculture faces unique challenges, and this Committee is the only dedicated federal forum for those issues. In the meantime, I look forward to the empty committee seat being filled, and a permanent designated officer being assigned.

Second, I suggest that video recordings and transcripts of these meetings once again be made publicly available online. Many people who care about urban agriculture—farmers, gardeners, food bank leaders, city planners—have trouble attending a live meeting. Making the meetings accessible after the fact ensures that the issues shared here reach the broader community and strengthen the field. I appreciate the minutes being made available, but they don’t replace the richness and depth of video or transcripts.

In short, this Committee is valuable both for the policy advice it provides to the USDA and for the community it helps foster. Urban agriculture isn’t just a stunted form of the real thing, hanging out in the abandoned lots and alleyways of our cities. It’s an opening into a different world full of possibilities for a whole new food system. This committee is one way for the People’s Department to serve ALL the people. Please ensure its continuation, and make its proceedings fully accessible.

Thank you for your time, and for your service to the future of urban agriculture.

Urban Farming Advocacy: Connect with USDA’s UAIPAC

The Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee (UAIPAC) needs to hear from people who care about resilient, equitable food systems in cities. Public comments shape its recommendations—and those recommendations shape USDA policy. This is an opportunity for us to strengthen and expand the role of the USDA in supporting urban agriculture and city food systems.

UAIPAC will hold three meetings this month, their first meetings this year:

9/10/25, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. PT

9/17/25, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. PT

9/24/25, 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. PT

Registration details can be found at: https://www.usda.gov/ partnerships/federal-advisory-committee-urban-ag

UAIPAC needs our help. This committee was created in the last Farm Bill (2018) along with the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production. For the first time urban agriculture has a strong, clear presence in the USDA. Unfortunately, the new efforts haven’t been well-funded, and progress has faltered.

Two papers have outlined issues faced in the implementation of urban ag policy within the USDA. Read them in in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development:

“…we call for consistent, permanent funding that is not subject to the annual federal budget process, which could power more tailored technical assistance programs, reformed granting initiatives, and expanded data collection to inform future policy and practice.”

Sustainable agriculture impacts in urban settings make the case for federal investments

This next paper provides “…a set of policy recommendations to improve UA and USDA programs, including as they intersect with the imperative for racial equity…”

Racial equity and the USDA’s Office of Urban Agriculture’s granting program and urban offices

I’ve observed several implementation issues.

OUAIP: Underfunded, still running pilot programs, and without a permanent director since May.
Advisory Committee: Down a member, meets irregularly, and must be reauthorized every two years. Unlike the National Organic Standards Board (another federal advisory committee of the USDA), it isn’t permanent.
Urban County Committees: Intended to connect city farmers with USDA, but still pilots—just 27 exist nationwide.
Urban Service Centers: Designed to help with city-specific challenges (land, water, zoning, soil contamination). Only 17 exist, and some are already faltering. In Los Angeles, for example, the planned center never opened.

There’s work to be done. Don’t let urban ag’s representation in the USDA falter.

Attend a meeting. Speak up. Help keep urban agriculture alive at the federal level.

Bureau of Reclamation Steps In

Tell the federal government what to do about the Colorado River.

The Colorado River’s use is governed by an agreement among the seven states that draw water from it, and that agreement is overseen by the Bureau of Reclamation, a part of the Department of the Interior. The current arrangement is completely inadequate to meet the growing demands of the water users and the dwindling water in the river. After the states blew past a couple of deadlines without putting together a new plan, the Bureau came up with a couple of ideas of their own and — this is the good part — they’ve published the plan and have opened it for comment. Wide open. You can comment.

“Reclamation is particularly interested in receiving specific recommendations related to the analyses or alternatives that can be considered and potentially integrated into the SEIS.” (Quote from Reclamation’s page linked in the next paragraph.)

Here’s the plan on the Bureau’s page: https://www.usbr.gov/ColoradoRiverBasin/SEIS.html

Brace yourself. It’s over 400 pages not counting the appendices. There has also been a lot in the press about the river’s woes lately, including a flurry of new articles about Reclamation’s proposals. Google is your friend. And there will be Zooms on May 4, 8, 10, and 16. Details are on that same page I linked to above.

If your head is clear enough to frame an opinion after all that, you can comment here: https://www.swcavirtualpublicinvolvement.com/cr-interimops-comment-form

School Lunches and Local Food

Local Food

The USDA wants to make it easier for schools to purchase food directly from local producers. As part of an effort to bring their rules into line with recommendations in their publication Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025 they’re proposing to make it easier for schools to employ a “geographic preference” for local foods in their bidding process. School districts themselves decide whether this is something they want to do, and they define for themselves what “local” means.

I love it!

If you love it (or hate it) you have until April 10 to comment.

Scratch Cooking

There’s something else I found interesting in the proposed rule changes. They’re recommending that the salt allowed in school meals be further reduced. So far schools have been able to meet the low sodium requirements with processed foods that are readily available, but lowering salt even more would make that difficult. The alternative is scratch cooking — that is, cooking from scratch at the school or district site. Most schools don’t do that, and don’t have the staff, the skill, the time or the equipment for it. The USDA has therefore estimated the cost of remedying all that and included it in their proposed budget.

Scratch cooking is a big deal! When you buy ready-made food, that puts a lot of steps between you and the farmer. That gap is where giant food corporations live. They buy from farmers in huge quantities, process food pulled from all over the country and imported from other countries, and ship it everywhere for sale. Then they lobby the government with their generous profits to bend food policy in their favor.

The average farm size in Iowa is over 300 acres, and they grow a lot of corn and soy. No one is going to plant 300 acres in field corn to supply a local market, but if there IS no local market, what choice do they have? Schools (and hospitals and just plain folk) all doing scratch cooking could support a friendlier, healthier local food system.

Here’s a nice post on the subject: From Farms to Schools: How a New Roadmap Will Transform How We Feed California Schoolchildren.

Competition in the American Economy

Today President Biden signed an Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy. It includes the agriculture sector.

He intends for the Department of Agriculture to toughen enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act by making rules that clearly identify unfair and unjust practices, reinforce the interpretation that a violation of the act doesn’t need to show harm to the whole industry – just one farmer is enough, dial back the practice of poultry companies controlling every aspect of a contract farmer’s operation while the farmer shoulders all the risk, updating the definitions and criteria for determining what is unfair under the Act, and shore up anti-retaliation protections for complainants under the Act. (The USDA had already announced on June 11 that it would begin work on the Packers and Stockyards Act.)
He wants the USDA to fix country of origin labeling so consumers can tell where their food is from.
He has directed the Department “to devise a plan to ensure that farmers have greater opportunities to access markets and receive a fair return for their products.” The order includes a list of suggested ways of doing this and ends with, “any other means that the Secretary of Agriculture deems appropriate.”
In an attempt to ” to improve farmers’ and smaller food processors’ access to retail markets,” he is asking for a report on the effect of retail concentration “including any practices that may violate the Federal Trade Commission Act, the Robinson-Patman Act (Public Law 74-692, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C. 13 et seq.), or other relevant laws” and also on “on grants, loans, and other support that may enhance access to retail markets by local and regional food enterprises.”
And he’s ordered a report on ways in which intellectual property rights may “unnecessarily reduce competition in seed and other input markets.”

Public Comments to Federal Agencies

I was recently involved in my first attempt at making a public comment to a federal agency, in this case The Department of Agriculture. It was a great learning experience, though I’m sure we could do a much better job the second time around. My first lesson was that we need to allow LOTS of time for any collaborative effort. We were hard-pressed to meet the comment deadline, and that seriously constrained our efforts.

This resource will help us (the San Fernando Valley and Los Angeles chapters of the Climate Reality Project) do a better job next time. And there will be a next time. The opportunity for public comment is too good to pass up!

How to Submit a Public Comment to a Federal Agency

County Urban Agriculture Committees

County Committees have deep roots

The US Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency had its origins (under another name) in the 1930s as part of an effort by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help farmers during the Great Depression. County committees of farmers have been a significant means for the agency to keep in touch with farmers on the ground since very early in that effort–so for nearly a century.

… and they matter

Today I listened to part of a hearing to review the state of Black farmers in the U.S. in which members of the House Agriculture Committee questioned Tom Vilsack, Biden’s Secretary of Agriculture. He also served as Secretary under Obama. One of the questions was from Alma Adams, a Democratic representative from North Carolina.

“What do you think might account for the steep drop in direct farm loans to Black producers and what steps is the USDA willing to take to increase that participation?” she asked.

Secretary Vilsack led off his reply by saying: “We have to have people in the Farm Service Agency offices and in the County Committees that reflect the population that they serve. When I was Secretary the last time, I did for the first time ever appoint minority members to County Committees that did not have minority membership. I think it’s important that we take a look a that County Committee structure.”

From this I draw the conclusion that County Committees matter.

Urban ag committees are born

That brings me to the most recent iteration of the Farm Bill in 2018. (There’s a new one every five years, more or less. I guess the Soviets weren’t the only ones enamored of five year plans.) It includes a pilot program to test the concept of County Urban Agriculture Committees. This was part of a larger plan to respond to the hitherto neglected topic of urban agriculture. By now there should be 10 of these pilot programs, but so far as I know, there are only 6, and none of them is in California. Will they create more? Will one be in Los Angeles?

Will Los Angeles get a committee?

I called our local Farm Service Agency (FSA) in Lancaster. Oddly no one in the Farm Service Agency there knew what I was talking about, but they eventually referred me to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), another USDA agency with whom they share office space. The NRCS woman I spoke to was very helpful. I mean, really, she was great. But her answer on the question about urban ag committees was that they’re a pilot program run out of Washington, so no one local knows much about them. She, too, would love to see a committee formed in Los Angeles, but her take was it’s up to the guys in D.C.

Then I found an email address on a flyer having to do with the urban committees, so I shot off a quick note. I got a response from a USDA office in Puerto Rico. Why Puerto Rico? I have no idea. Certainly not because my correspondent there was a fount of useful information. The most germane tidbit he had to offer was the email address of someone else he said could provide more information on the off chance I was still curious.

I was.

So I emailed contact number 3, who turns out to work on county urban ag committees for the NRCS. Now I’m thinking that even though the ag committees for everyone else are handled out of the Farm Services Agency, the pilot for the urban ag committees is the National Resource Conservation Service’s baby, which, I suppose, is why my question to the Farm Service Agency in Lancaster was referred to the NRCS.

Why would the NRCS be running county urban ag committees when all the original county ag committees are under FSA’s umbrella? I’m guessing it’s because, after all, urban farms aren’t real farms, right? In farming circles, small farms are sometimes referred to, rather dismissively, as hobby farms, and hobby farms are not always taken very seriously by real farmers. I see their point, but from my perspective small farms have one very big factor making them interesting — they’re hotbeds of innovation. Urban farms suffer, though, not only from being small, but also urban. Maybe that’s more than the FSA can wrap its mind around? But that’s another story.

And my email to Washington? It’s been two weeks and I’m still waiting, but I’m guessing the guy is pretty busy. Maybe tomorrow, or next week. Better late than never.

Maybe Vilsack will know!

That brings me to an email invite I got a couple of days ago to a “teletownhall” with American Farmland Trust President and CEO John Piotti talking to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. When I registered to attend, the site gave me the opportunity to submit a question, so I did. I asked if they’d be forming any new county urban agriculture committees and, if so, was there any chance Los Angeles would get one.

I’m not sure where to turn next if he doesn’t have a satisfying answer, but I’ll think of something. Never say die.

Update (4/14/21)

There were over 5500 people in attendance at the teletownhall with Secretary Vilsack; my question wasn’t among the chosen. Most of what he said wasn’t of great interest to me, but one point caught my attention. A caller asked if we could farm sustainably and still produce enough food for export. My sense was that the caller imagined sustainable farming would mean the end of industrial agriculture. Vilsack’s answer seemed to be that we could keep doing what we’re doing (industrial ag), but tweak it enough to be sustainable without sacrificing production. Maybe I’m reading too much into his comments, but I’m not looking to Vilsack to launch the crusade against concentration in agriculture that I’d like to see. He’s also keen on some kind of carbon bank, a means by which money would be collected from GHG emitters (a carbon tax?) and then doled out to farmers who engaged in carbon sequestering practices.