Bill Proposes Lifting Disaster Aid Caps for Farmers Deriving 75%+ Income from Agriculture

This bill, titled the "Fair Access to Agriculture Disaster Programs Act," proposes a change to how disaster relief payments are capped for some farmers, ranchers, and foresters. Specifically, it amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to create an exception to existing payment limitations. This exception would apply to individuals or businesses that earn at least 75% of their average adjusted gross income (AGI) directly from farming, ranching, or forestry (silviculture) activities.

Who Gets More Help When Disaster Strikes?

Currently, there are limits on how much financial assistance one person or entity can receive from certain federal agricultural disaster programs. This bill targets specific programs, including those under the Agricultural Act of 2014 (like ARC/PLC or other disaster programs authorized there) and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP) from the 1996 FAIR Act. Under Section 2 of this proposed law, if a farmer's livelihood overwhelmingly depends on agriculture (meeting that 75% income threshold), the usual cap on payments from these disaster programs wouldn't apply to them. For example, a full-time grain farmer whose income comes almost entirely from their crops might currently hit the payment ceiling after a devastating flood, even if their calculated losses are much higher. This bill aims to allow them to receive aid more aligned with their actual disaster losses.

Potential Impacts: Targeted Relief or Uneven Benefits?

The core idea is to provide a stronger safety net for those whose financial survival is most directly tied to the land. When disaster hits, someone earning nearly all their income from farming faces a different level of risk than someone with significant off-farm income. However, this approach also raises questions. Does the 75% threshold create a fair cutoff? A farm deriving 70% of its income from agriculture could face similar devastation but wouldn't qualify for the exception. There's also the potential for this to disproportionately benefit larger operations, which might have higher incomes (and thus potentially larger uncapped payments) while still meeting the 75% dependency rule. While aiming for fairness based on income source, the practical effect could mean different levels of support for farms facing similar disasters, depending on their income structure and scale.