Tag: Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production

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 😉

  1. 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.
  2. Thank-you letters and recruitment outreach help normalize the idea that this reauthorization is important and popular.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

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

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.