Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins stood with Dr. Mehmet Oz and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on December 10 to announce a $700 million Regenerative Pilot Program for American farmers. The program promises to “improve soil health, enhance water quality, and boost long-term productivity” through cover crops and intensive rotational grazing. What the announcement didn’t mention: the same practices can devastate farms in Colorado’s semi-arid climate.
The program funds practices through existing USDA conservation programs—$400 million through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $300 million through the Conservation Stewardship Program. Farmers can bundle multiple “regenerative practices” into a single application starting in fiscal year 2026.
“Regenerative agriculture” lacks definition in the federal announcement. Intensive rotational grazing means high stocking rates with frequent pasture rotation. Cover cropping means planting non-cash crops between harvest and next planting. Both work in Iowa’s 32 inches of annual rainfall. Both fail in Colorado’s 15 inches.
Colorado State University research documents what happens when farmers apply humid-climate practices to semi-arid conditions. A CSU study in southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah found cover crops reduced wheat yields by 27 percent compared to fallow. The greater the biomass, the less soil moisture remained.
Cover crops decreased soil moisture by 0.4 inches for every 2,200 pounds of biomass produced per acre. Late summer plantings generated more biomass than spring plantings but left even less water. Some federally recommended species—teff, flax, sunn hemp, balansa clover—performed poorly in Colorado trials.
The problem intensifies through “preemptive competition.” Cover crops absorb nitrogen that doesn’t mineralize back into soil before next planting because dry conditions limit decomposition. CSU researchers found soil nitrate levels dropped by nearly half after cover crops compared to fallow. Wheat grain protein content declined.
Cover crops in arid climates need irrigation to establish. Farmers growing them without irrigation get poor establishment and reduced effectiveness. Colorado agriculture already operates with a 2 million acre-foot annual water deficit. Crops currently use 4.7 million acre-feet but need an additional 2 million to achieve full irrigation, according to the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Farmers competing for Colorado River water don’t have spare capacity to irrigate non-cash crops that reduce yields of cash crops.
Intensive rotational grazing—moving livestock through pastures frequently with short grazing periods followed by rest—works in humid climates where forage recovers quickly. In arid Colorado rangelands, the practice becomes heavy stocking because recovery takes longer. Research across 25 long-term North American grazing studies found moderate stocking rates of 43 percent utilization produced the highest financial returns in arid climates. Heavy stocking at 57 percent utilization coupled with drought caused “financial devastation.”
The conventional “take half, leave half” approach of 50 percent utilization—often called moderate grazing—causes “significant rangeland deterioration…over an extended period of time” in arid regions, according to New Mexico State University research. What works in Iowa destroys Colorado shortgrass prairie. Overgrazing accelerates soil compaction, reduces water infiltration, and triggers erosion. Recovery is “slow and often incomplete” in arid environments.
Colorado agriculture generates $9 billion annually, with livestock accounting for 70 percent of that value. The state ranks tenth nationally in cattle and calf inventory with 2.8 million head. Cattle operations dominate because 15 inches of rain suits grazing better than growing the fruits and vegetables nutritionists recommend.
The San Luis Valley produces carrots, potatoes, and some vegetables under irrigation. Eastern plains farmers grow additional potatoes, onions, and cabbage. Mountain valleys produce limited peaches and apples. Federal dietary guidelines recommend filling half your plate with fruits and vegetables. Colorado produces beef and feed grains. The mismatch isn’t poor planning—it’s precipitation.
Kennedy touted the program as part of his “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, seeking to reduce farmers’ dependence on “chemicals and fertilizer inputs” through regenerative practices emphasizing soil health. The Department of Health and Human Services will research connections between regenerative agriculture and public health while developing messaging explaining the relationship.
Colorado farmers aren’t opposed to reducing chemical use or improving soil health. They’re opposed to “conservation” programs that bundle federal dollars with long-term easements restricting land use, or that fund rewilding agendas including wolf reintroduction. Conservation in Colorado has become shorthand for land grabs dressed as environmental stewardship.
Farmers want conservation practices they can afford that produce crops they can sell at profit. Cover crops that reduce yields by 27 percent while consuming water farmers don’t have fail both tests.
The program allows USDA to create public-private partnerships, matching private corporate funding with federal dollars. Companies interested in partnering can email regenerative@usda.gov. The announcement noted “growing desire among private companies to fund conservation practices” without identifying which companies or what their agricultural interests might be. Corporate funding for conservation often comes with strings—data collection, carbon credit schemes, or land management requirements that benefit corporate partners more than farmers.
Federal conservation programs already exist. EQIP and CSP have operated for years with applications processed through local NRCS offices. The Regenerative Pilot Program repackages existing funding streams under a new label—one that lacks scientific definition—while adding a Chief’s Advisory Council with rotating stakeholders meeting quarterly to “review implementation progress and help guide data and reporting improvements.”
The program’s single-application approach does streamline bureaucracy. Farmers currently navigate separate applications for different conservation practices. Bundling practices into one application reduces paperwork. But streamlined paperwork doesn’t solve the fundamental problem: practices that build soil health in Pennsylvania can destroy it in Pueblo.
American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall welcomed the announcement with measured language, noting farmers “have long practiced regenerative agriculture on their farms, both through federal conservation programs and on their own.” His statement emphasized farmers should remain “in the driver’s seat.” Environmental Working Group’s Midwest director Anne Schechinger called the announcement “important steps in the right direction” but noted “most applications from producers to utilize these programs still go unfunded due to overwhelming interest.”
The photo opportunity featuring Oz—who runs Medicare and Medicaid, not agriculture policy—alongside Kennedy and Rollins positioned agricultural conservation as health policy theater. Oz praised the program for strengthening “our nation’s food supply” as part of “the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which President Trump has directed this administration to execute across all government agencies.”
Colorado farmers face a choice between federal dollars and farm survival. Adopting practices that reduce yields by 27 percent while consuming water they don’t have makes farms unprofitable. Maintaining operations based on decades of managing 15 inches of rain means walking away from $700 million in funding. The streamlined application doesn’t change the arithmetic: practices designed for Iowa’s 32 inches destroy Colorado’s 15.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 