This resource page presents funding strategies that states have used or advocates have proposed for their healthy soils programs. For each funding mechanism, we provide a description, real-world examples where available, and key considerations for advocates.

Public Revenue

<aside>

Mechanisms that dedicate or redirect public revenue streams to support soil health, conservation, and agricultural resilience.

</aside>

Untitled

Budget & Finance

<aside>

Mechanisms that use state budgets, public finance, or financing tools to capitalize and sustain soil health investments.

</aside>

Untitled

Partnership & Local Funding

<aside>

Mechanisms that mobilize funding through local institutions, conservation districts, and public-private partnerships.

</aside>

Untitled

Water & Resilience

<aside>

Mechanisms that fund soil health through its benefits for water quality, watershed protection, climate resilience, and ecosystem services.

</aside>

Untitled

Federal & Tax Incentives

<aside>

Mechanisms that leverage federal conservation dollars or use state tax policy to incentivize soil health practices.

</aside>

Untitled

<aside> ❓

Questions to ask when considering funding sources

No funding source is universally preferable. When evaluating potential mechanisms, consider:

• Sustainability: Can this source provide reliable funding over the long term, or is it better suited to launching or piloting a program?
• Scale: Is it capable of generating enough revenue to meaningfully support the program?
• Stability: How vulnerable is the funding to economic cycles, annual budget negotiations, or fluctuations in the underlying revenue source?
• Accessibility: How difficult will it be for agencies and producers to access and use the funds?
• Restrictions: Are there legal or statutory limitations on how the revenue can be spent?
• Equity: Who ultimately pays for the funding mechanism, and who benefits from the resulting investments?
• Political feasibility: What legislative, administrative, or voter approval would be required?
• Accountability: Can expenditures and outcomes be clearly tracked and communicated?
• Leverage: Could the funding attract or unlock additional federal, local, philanthropic, or private investment?
• Tradeoffs: What competing priorities, unintended consequences, or opportunity costs come with using this source?

Adapted in part from considerations identified in **Developing Community-Driven State Soil Health Policy and Programs (**Yale, 2021)

</aside>

<aside> 📘

Authorship & Curation

This resource was compiled by the National Healthy Soils Policy Network as an “idea bank” for organizers and policymakers advocating for state-level healthy soils programs. It synthesizes examples from existing state programs, proposed legislation, and relevant public policy research. We are grateful to the many members of the National Healthy Soils Policy Network and allied organizations whose legislative campaigns and program development informed this resource.

Key policy insights and examples are drawn from:

• Existing strategy documents and output of meetings of the National Network
• Advocacy and policy reports from Earthjustice, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, and OEFFA
• Peter Lehner and Nathan Rosenberg’s chapter "Agriculture" in Legal Pathways to Deep Decarbonization in the United States (2019)
• **Developing Community-Driven State Soil Health Policy and Programs (**Yale, 2021) </aside>