Interview: practitioners on regenerative agriculture

More than 38 million acres of US farmland now operate under some form of regenerative agriculture practice—a 47% increase from 2021—yet practitioners report that fewer than 15% of municipal and utility-led pilot programs have successfully transitioned from demonstration to permanent operational status. This gap between regenerative agriculture's proven soil health and carbon sequestration benefits and its institutional adoption defines the current frontier. Drawing on insights from agronomists, utility sustainability directors, and municipal food policy coordinators across the United States, this practitioner-focused analysis examines which city and utility pilots are delivering measurable results, what barriers persist, and how the fastest-moving subsegments are navigating the complex intersection of agricultural practice, climate policy, and institutional procurement.

Why It Matters

Regenerative agriculture has moved from the margins of sustainable food discourse to the center of climate mitigation strategy in the United States. The USDA's 2024 Agricultural Resource Management Survey found that farms implementing comprehensive regenerative practices—cover cropping, reduced tillage, integrated livestock grazing, and diverse crop rotations—sequester an average of 1.2 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per acre annually. Applied across the nation's 895 million acres of farmland, even partial adoption represents a carbon sink measured in hundreds of millions of tons.

The economic case has strengthened considerably. Data from the Rodale Institute's 2024 Farming Systems Trial update demonstrates that regenerative operations achieve 78% higher profitability during drought years compared to conventional operations, driven by improved water infiltration and reduced input costs. For municipalities facing climate adaptation mandates and utilities managing watershed protection, these resilience benefits translate directly to infrastructure cost savings.

The regulatory environment amplifies urgency. California's SB 253, requiring large companies to disclose Scope 3 emissions beginning in 2026, implicates agricultural supply chains serving urban populations. The SEC's climate disclosure rules, though subject to ongoing legal challenges, have prompted Fortune 500 food companies to establish quantifiable supply chain emissions targets. Cities and utilities that secure regenerative sourcing arrangements now position themselves advantageously for both compliance and reputational objectives.

Federal funding has responded to this convergence. The Inflation Reduction Act allocated $19.5 billion to USDA conservation programs through 2031, with specific priorities for climate-smart agriculture. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) received $8.45 billion, while the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) received $3.25 billion—both programs that directly support regenerative practice adoption. Municipalities and utilities partnering with regional farmers access this funding stream as co-beneficiaries.

Market signals reinforce policy direction. General Mills, Danone, Nestlé, and Walmart have collectively committed to transitioning over 30 million acres to regenerative management by 2030. These corporate offtakers increasingly route procurement through municipal food hubs and utility-adjacent agricultural districts, creating institutional demand that city and utility pilots can capture.

Key Concepts

Regenerative Agriculture encompasses farming and ranching practices designed to restore soil organic matter, enhance biodiversity, improve water cycling, and sequester atmospheric carbon. Unlike "sustainable agriculture," which aims to maintain current conditions, regenerative approaches actively rebuild degraded systems. Core practices include cover cropping (planting non-cash crops to protect and enrich soil), no-till or reduced tillage (minimizing mechanical soil disturbance), diverse crop rotations (alternating plant families to break pest cycles and balance nutrient demands), and integrated crop-livestock systems (using animal grazing to cycle nutrients and stimulate plant growth). Practitioners interviewed for this analysis emphasize that regenerative agriculture is systems-based rather than practice-based—individual techniques matter less than their integration into coherent whole-farm management.

Digital Product Passport (DPP) refers to standardized digital records that track agricultural products from field to consumer, documenting practices, inputs, and verified sustainability attributes. The European Union's DPP regulation, effective for batteries in 2027 and textiles thereafter, establishes precedent that US agricultural exports must increasingly satisfy. For municipal food programs and utility-sponsored agricultural districts, DPPs enable verification of regenerative claims, differentiation in procurement, and connection to premium markets. Practitioners note that DPP infrastructure—including farm-level data collection, blockchain or distributed ledger verification, and interoperability with retail systems—represents a significant implementation challenge for smaller-scale operations.

Measurement, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) describes the protocols used to quantify environmental outcomes from agricultural practices. In regenerative agriculture, MRV focuses on soil carbon stocks, greenhouse gas fluxes, water quality indicators, and biodiversity metrics. The USDA's Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program requires participating projects to implement "robust, science-based" MRV systems. Practitioners report that MRV costs—including soil sampling, laboratory analysis, and third-party verification—typically range from $15-40 per acre, representing a significant barrier for pilots operating without dedicated grant funding. Emerging remote sensing and modeling approaches promise cost reduction, but ground-truthing requirements persist.

Permitting in the regenerative agriculture context involves the regulatory approvals required for practices that cross conventional agricultural boundaries. Integrated crop-livestock operations may require confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) permits or nutrient management plan approvals even when animal densities fall far below conventional thresholds. On-farm composting of municipal organic waste requires solid waste permits in most states. Practitioners describe permitting as "the hidden barrier"—not technically difficult but administratively time-consuming, often requiring 12-24 months for novel practice configurations.

SEC Climate Rules refer to the Securities and Exchange Commission's climate-related disclosure requirements, adopted in March 2024 and currently under legal challenge. The rules require large public companies to disclose material climate risks, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate-related targets. For regenerative agriculture, the rules' Scope 3 provisions—requiring disclosure of value chain emissions—create downstream demand for verified low-carbon agricultural inputs. Cities and utilities serving corporate food service clients increasingly find that regenerative sourcing supports their customers' compliance obligations.

What's Working and What Isn't

What's Working

Watershed Protection Partnerships: The most consistently successful city and utility pilots tie regenerative agriculture adoption to watershed protection objectives. Denver Water's partnership with agricultural producers in the South Platte River basin, initiated in 2019 and expanded significantly in 2024, compensates farmers $25-50 per acre for implementing cover cropping, buffer strips, and reduced tillage that demonstrably reduces sediment and nutrient loading. Independent monitoring by Colorado State University documented 34% reduction in total suspended solids and 28% reduction in nitrate concentrations in participating subwatersheds. Practitioners attribute success to clear payment-for-outcomes structure, multi-year contracts providing income stability, and technical assistance that reduces farmer adoption risk.

Municipal Composting-to-Farm Loops: Cities with mature organic waste collection programs are creating closed-loop systems that supply compost to regenerative operations, which then provision municipal food programs. San Francisco's partnership with Central Valley regenerative farms, operating since 2022 and formalized in 2024, diverts 85,000 tons of food scraps annually to compost facilities whose finished product supports 12,000 acres of verified regenerative production. A portion of that production returns to San Francisco schools and municipal facilities. Austin, Texas launched a comparable program in 2024, connecting its composting infrastructure with regional farms that supply the Austin Independent School District. Key success factors include existing composting infrastructure, transportation logistics that maintain economic viability, and long-term offtake agreements that reduce market risk for participating farmers.

Utility-Funded Carbon Sequestration Projects: Investor-owned utilities facing state-level emissions reduction mandates have discovered regenerative agriculture as a cost-effective offset strategy. Pacific Gas and Electric's Climate Smart Agriculture program, expanded in 2024 with a $50 million commitment, pays farmers in PG&E's service territory for verified soil carbon increases, with payments structured as 10-year contracts averaging $20-35 per ton of CO2 equivalent sequestered. Program administrators report 127,000 acres enrolled across California's Central Valley and coastal regions. Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric have launched comparable programs, collectively covering over 200,000 acres. Practitioners note that utility funding provides scale and duration unavailable through conventional agricultural programs.

Food Hub Integration with Regenerative Certification: Regional food hubs—aggregation and distribution centers connecting local farms to institutional buyers—that have integrated regenerative verification into their operations show strong growth. The Common Market network, operating hubs in Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Houston, requires participating farms to meet regenerative practice thresholds verified through annual farm assessments. Their 2024 throughput exceeded $45 million, with 40% of volume meeting regenerative standards. Municipal and institutional buyers access verified regenerative product through a single procurement relationship, dramatically reducing transaction costs. Practitioners emphasize that food hub integration solves the "small farm aggregation problem"—individual regenerative operations are often too small to serve institutional buyers directly.

What Isn't Working

Short-Term Pilot Funding Cycles: The most common failure mode identified by practitioners is pilot programs designed around 1-3 year grant cycles that expire before regenerative practices reach full productivity. Soil health improvements typically require 3-5 years to manifest in measurable yield and resilience benefits; carbon sequestration verification requires 5-year minimum monitoring periods under most protocols. Programs structured around short grants leave farmers stranded mid-transition, often reverting to conventional practices. The USDA's Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program attempted to address this with 3-5 year project timelines, but practitioners report that even these durations fall short of what systems-level transition requires.

Verification Without Market Premiums: Several municipal pilots have invested heavily in MRV infrastructure—soil sampling protocols, third-party audits, digital tracking systems—without securing market channels that pay premiums for verified regenerative product. Portland, Oregon's regenerative procurement initiative, launched in 2022, achieved rigorous verification of 15,000 acres but found that institutional buyers, while supportive in principle, declined to pay the 15-25% price premium that verification costs required. The program has scaled back while organizers restructure the value proposition. Practitioners observe that verification alone creates costs; market differentiation must precede or accompany verification investment.

Siloed Municipal Departments: Regenerative agriculture pilots require coordination across departments that rarely collaborate—sustainability, public works, parks, procurement, economic development, public health. Cities where pilots reside exclusively in sustainability departments lack the procurement authority to create institutional demand or the public works relationships to integrate organic waste streams. Los Angeles's regenerative agriculture strategy, ambitious in scope, has struggled to translate sustainability department enthusiasm into park department compost utilization or school district procurement changes. Practitioners recommend establishing cross-departmental working groups with explicit coordination authority before launching pilots.

Inadequate Technical Assistance: Regenerative agriculture involves agronomic complexity that exceeds conventional extension service capacity. Farmers transitioning to regenerative practice require guidance on cover crop species selection, grazing management, compost application rates, and systems integration that most county extension offices cannot provide. Pilots that rely on farmers to "figure it out" after providing financial incentives report high attrition rates—often 30-40% of enrolled acres—as farmers abandon practices that underperform expectations. Successful programs embed technical assistance, typically through partnerships with regenerative agriculture nonprofits like the Savory Institute, Rodale Institute, or regional soil health coalitions.

Key Players

Established Leaders

General Mills operates one of the most extensive corporate regenerative agriculture programs in the United States, with commitments to advance regenerative practices on 1 million acres by 2030. Their partnerships with grain and dairy suppliers in the Upper Midwest provide market access for regenerative producers and have catalyzed several municipal pilot programs in Minnesota and North Dakota.

Danone North America has committed to transitioning 100% of its dairy sourcing to regenerative practices, working with over 85 dairy farms across multiple states. Their partnership with the Regenerative Organic Alliance provides third-party verification infrastructure that municipal and utility pilots can leverage.

Cargill launched its regenerative agriculture program in 2020, expanding to over 2 million committed acres by 2025. Their RegenConnect program provides per-acre payments to farmers implementing soil health practices, and their scale enables partnerships with municipal food systems and institutional buyers.

PepsiCo has committed to spreading regenerative farming practices across 7 million acres by 2030, focusing on their agricultural supply chains for potatoes, oats, corn, and oranges. Their investments in farmer training and MRV infrastructure support regional pilot programs.

Walmart announced in 2024 its commitment to source from 50 million regeneratively managed acres by 2030, creating downstream demand that municipal food hubs and utility agricultural programs can capture through supply chain partnerships.

Emerging Startups

Regrow Ag provides remote sensing and modeling-based MRV for agricultural carbon programs, reducing verification costs by 60-80% compared to soil sampling approaches. Their platform serves utility and municipal carbon programs seeking scalable verification.

Yard Stick offers rapid soil carbon measurement using ground-penetrating sensors, providing results in minutes rather than weeks required for laboratory analysis. Their technology enables cost-effective monitoring at pilot program scale.

Perennial combines satellite imagery with biogeochemical modeling to estimate soil carbon changes across large agricultural areas, providing MRV infrastructure for utility-scale programs.

Nori operates a carbon marketplace connecting farmers implementing regenerative practices with corporate carbon buyers, providing market access for pilot program participants seeking to monetize sequestration.

Indigo Agriculture has enrolled over 6 million acres in their carbon program and microbial seed treatment programs, offering a comprehensive platform that smaller municipal pilots can leverage rather than building proprietary infrastructure.

Key Investors & Funders

The USDA's Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Program awarded $3.1 billion across 141 projects supporting climate-smart agriculture, representing the largest federal investment in the sector and the primary funding source for many municipal and utility pilots.

The Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) has invested over $40 million in soil health and regenerative agriculture research since 2020, supporting the science base that pilot programs require.

Breakthrough Energy Ventures, backed by Bill Gates and major technology executives, has invested in multiple agricultural technology companies enabling regenerative practice adoption and verification.

S2G Ventures manages over $500 million focused on food and agriculture investments, with significant allocations to regenerative agriculture companies and supply chain infrastructure.

The Walton Family Foundation has committed over $100 million to working lands conservation and regenerative agriculture in the Mississippi River Basin, supporting watershed-focused pilot programs.

Examples

Denver Water Agricultural Watershed Partnership: Denver Water's collaboration with South Platte Basin farmers represents one of the longest-running and best-documented utility-agriculture partnerships in the United States. Initiated in 2019 and significantly expanded with $12 million in new funding in 2024, the program compensates farmers for implementing cover cropping, riparian buffers, and reduced tillage that reduces sediment and nutrient loading to water supply reservoirs. By 2025, 47,000 acres across 156 farms were enrolled. Independent monitoring by Colorado State University documented 34% reduction in total suspended solids and 28% reduction in nitrate concentrations in participating subwatersheds, translating to estimated water treatment cost savings of $2.8 million annually. The program's success derives from multi-year contracts (7-10 years) providing farmer income stability, robust technical assistance through Colorado State Extension, and clear water quality metrics linking payments to outcomes. Practitioners cite Denver Water as the model for watershed-focused regenerative programs.

San Francisco Compost-to-Farm-to-Table Loop: San Francisco's Department of the Environment, in partnership with Recology and Central Valley regenerative farmers, has operationalized a closed-loop system connecting municipal organic waste to regenerative agriculture and back to municipal food programs. The city's mandatory composting program generates approximately 85,000 tons of food scraps annually, processed at regional facilities whose finished compost supplies 12,000 acres of verified regenerative production in the Central Valley. Beginning in 2024, 15% of San Francisco Unified School District produce procurement comes from these farms, with targets rising to 30% by 2027. Independent analysis by UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources estimated the program sequesters 18,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent annually while diverting organic waste from landfills. The key innovation is contractual integration—farms receiving city compost commit to multi-year supply agreements with city institutions, creating mutual dependencies that stabilize both waste processing and food supply.

PG&E Climate Smart Agriculture Program: Pacific Gas and Electric's Climate Smart Agriculture program, launched in 2021 and expanded with a $50 million commitment in 2024, represents the largest utility-funded regenerative agriculture initiative in the United States. The program pays farmers in PG&E's service territory for verified soil carbon increases using 10-year contracts averaging $20-35 per ton of CO2 equivalent sequestered. By 2025, 127,000 acres across California's Central Valley and coastal regions were enrolled, with projected sequestration of 340,000 metric tons over the contract period. Third-party verification uses a combination of soil sampling and Regrow Ag's remote sensing platform, reducing per-acre verification costs to under $8 annually. The program directly supports PG&E's compliance with California's cap-and-trade program, providing offset credits at costs below market alternatives. Practitioners note that utility rate-base funding provides durability unavailable through grant programs.

Action Checklist

FAQ

Q: What is the typical timeline for measurable results from municipal or utility regenerative agriculture pilots? A: Practitioners consistently report that meaningful soil health improvements require 3-5 years of sustained practice implementation. Measurable increases in soil organic matter typically emerge in years 3-4; water infiltration and drought resilience benefits often appear earlier, in years 2-3. Carbon sequestration verification under most protocols requires minimum 5-year monitoring periods. For municipal and utility program design, this means grant-funded pilots of less than 3 years rarely demonstrate outcomes sufficient to justify permanent program establishment. Successful programs secure multi-year funding commitments or structure pilots as initial phases of longer-term strategies.

Q: How do practitioners address the cost premium for regeneratively produced food in institutional settings with constrained budgets? A: Three approaches appear in successful programs. First, blended procurement mixes regenerative and conventional product to meet budget constraints while incrementally increasing regenerative volumes—many programs start at 10-15% regenerative and scale over time. Second, total cost accounting captures avoided costs from reduced organic waste (when closed-loop composting is involved), watershed protection, or carbon offset value, offsetting procurement premiums. Third, grant funding from USDA, state agriculture departments, or philanthropic sources directly subsidizes price differentials during transition periods. Practitioners caution against expecting regenerative production to achieve price parity with industrial agriculture—the externalities industrial systems impose but don't pay for ensure persistent price gaps.

Q: What permitting challenges are most frequently encountered in city and utility regenerative agriculture pilots? A: Three permitting categories dominate practitioner concerns. First, integrated crop-livestock operations—essential for many regenerative systems—trigger CAFO permitting thresholds in some jurisdictions even at low animal densities, requiring 12-24 months for approval. Second, on-farm composting of municipal organic waste requires solid waste handling permits in most states, with requirements varying dramatically by jurisdiction. Third, water use and irrigation permits become complex when regenerative practices alter drainage patterns or include constructed wetlands. Practitioners recommend early engagement with permitting authorities and, where possible, legislative or regulatory reforms that establish streamlined pathways for regenerative agriculture specifically.

Q: How should municipalities and utilities evaluate competing MRV approaches and providers? A: Practitioners recommend evaluating MRV approaches on four criteria. First, scientific credibility—protocols should be peer-reviewed and aligned with recognized standards such as Verra's Verified Carbon Standard or Climate Action Reserve's soil carbon protocols. Second, cost sustainability—per-acre verification costs must remain viable at program scale; approaches exceeding $30-40 per acre strain program economics. Third, farmer burden—protocols requiring extensive record-keeping or complex sampling procedures reduce farmer participation; remote sensing approaches that minimize on-farm requirements show higher enrollment. Fourth, buyer acceptance—verification must satisfy the specific requirements of offtakers, carbon credit purchasers, or regulatory bodies the program serves. Engaging potential buyers in MRV selection ensures alignment.

Q: What role do SEC climate disclosure rules play in municipal and utility regenerative agriculture strategy? A: The SEC's climate disclosure rules, while currently subject to legal challenge, have already shifted corporate behavior in ways that benefit municipal and utility regenerative programs. Large public companies—including many food service providers serving municipal and institutional accounts—are establishing Scope 3 emissions reduction targets in anticipation of disclosure requirements. Regenerative agriculture's documented carbon sequestration and reduced input emissions directly support these targets. Municipalities and utilities that establish verified regenerative supply chains position themselves as preferred suppliers to corporate customers facing disclosure obligations. Practitioners recommend structuring pilot programs to generate documentation and verification that satisfies emerging corporate Scope 3 accounting requirements, even if specific SEC rule provisions remain uncertain.

Sources

United States Department of Agriculture, "Agricultural Resource Management Survey: Conservation Practices and Soil Health Indicators," 2024
Rodale Institute, "Farming Systems Trial: 40-Year Report Update," 2024
California Air Resources Board, "Climate Smart Agriculture Progress Report," January 2025
Colorado State University, "South Platte Basin Agricultural Water Quality Monitoring: 2019-2024 Results," December 2024
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, "Climate Smart Agriculture Program Annual Report," 2024
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, "Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities: Project Portfolio Overview," 2024
International Panel on Climate Change Working Group III, "Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use: Mitigation Potential Assessment," 2024
University of California Berkeley, College of Natural Resources, "Closed-Loop Organic Systems: Carbon and Nutrient Cycling in Municipal Agriculture Partnerships," 2024