Ecosystems, Agriculture and Household Stewardship

Restore whole ecosystems

We depend on healthy soil, water and habitats, and on the variety of plants and animals they support.

An ecosystem includes living things, their surroundings and the interactions between them. Restoring a stream therefore involves more than the water alone: nearby soil, plants and habitats matter too. Whole-ecosystem restoration looks at how those parts function together.

The Solution

We would make improving whole ecosystems a core objective. That means restoring waterways, native fields and forests, habitats and biodiversity, the variety of living things they support. We would reduce invasive species as far as practical.

Still to Decide

Programs could help restore watersheds, the land that drains into rivers and other waterways, and connect habitats so wildlife can move between them. They could also support habitat planting, rain gardens that absorb runoff, tree cover and help with landscape design. Voluntary recognition could acknowledge people who care for their land in these ways.

We still need to choose ecological measures and establish starting conditions so we can assess improvement. The design also needs to explain how incentives would work, how results would be checked and certified, how decisions could be appealed, how programs would be funded and what legal protection would apply.

Source: EPA: Ecological condition

Protect regenerative landscaping from conflicting HOA penalties

Rules about how a yard looks should not override protections for landscaping that restores soil and habitats.

Homeowners associations (HOAs) can set yard rules. Regenerative landscaping means caring for land in ways that restore soil and habitats. Some protections already exist: Florida, for example, limits HOA prohibitions on specified water-conserving landscaping. This proposal addresses conflicts between ecological landscaping and HOA penalties.

The Solution

We would protect regenerative landscaping, which restores soil and habitats, from conflicting homeowners association (HOA) penalties. The protection would be enforceable, while other HOA obligations would still apply.

Still to Decide

Narrowly defined HOA rules could still require clear sidewalks and sight lines and address actual hazards.

We need to work out how this individual right fits with residents’ collective votes on development and their shared responsibilities for the local environment.

Source: EPA: WaterSense community action, Florida Legislature: HOA landscaping protections

Make regenerative agriculture the agricultural foundation

Future harvests depend on keeping soil and the surrounding living systems healthy.

Farming depends on soil that supports crops, holds water and sustains living organisms. Here, regenerative agriculture means farming that restores soil and ecosystems. The aim is to assess how the land is doing as well as what it produces, with results judged in local conditions.

The Solution

We would make regenerative agriculture, farming that restores soil and ecosystems, the foundation of agricultural policy. We would treat healthy soil as critical infrastructure because food production depends on it.

Still to Decide

States could monitor food supplies, crop threats and water use, along with processing, storage and distribution. They could connect producers with demand and provide research, seed banks, testing and voluntary technical help. Proposed transition incentives and public purchasing measures would reward demonstrated ecological improvement while taking regional conditions into account.

We still need to design the transition and test effects on ecosystems, nutrition, farm economics and food supply. We should not assume that every practice works equally well in every region.

Source: USDA NRCS: Soil health on cropland

Establish seed commons and enforceable farmer rights

Farmers should not lose the freedom to save and reproduce seed because of ownership claims or contracts.

A seed commons would treat seed as a shared resource with protected freedoms to save and reproduce it. Today, buying physical seed does not always give unrestricted permission to reproduce a protected variety. Patents, plant-variety protections and contracts have different rules, including some existing seed-saving exceptions.

The Solution

We would protect farmers’ rights to plant, save, store, breed and replant seed. Treating seeds as a commons means protecting them as a shared resource and reforming laws, ownership claims, contracts and market practices that defeat those freedoms.

What those rights would cover: These protections would include genetically modified varieties. They would address both contracts and market control that make farmers dependent on a supplier. Owning and selling a stock of physical seeds is different from holding exclusive control over who can reproduce or access them.

Still to Decide

One option is a Farmer Rights Act establishing rights to save, breed and replant seed that could not be signed away in a contract. A Seed Commons Act could address exclusive control of seed genetics and support public seed banks and open breeding. These are possible legal approaches. We still need an explicit inventory of existing patents, plant-variety rights, licenses and contracts, and a plan for the transition.

Source: USDA: Plant-variety protection and farmer exceptions, USDA: Seed markets, intellectual property and farmer choices

Reward native residential landscapes and food gardens

The way we care for our yards can help restore habitats and support food growing.

A yard can provide habitat and grow food as well as serve as outdoor living space. Native plants are species that occur naturally in a region and can support its wildlife. This proposal concerns recognizing those uses of residential land.

The Solution

We would reward native residential habitats, home gardens and food-growing landscapes in both front and back yards.

How standards should work: Standards should recognize intentional care and ecological results. Simply stopping mowing does not prove that a habitat has been restored. The incentives, certification process and ways to remedy violations must be usable without making a conventional lawn’s appearance the test of success.

Still to Decide

The form and amount of any tax credit or rebate remain undecided.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Native plants and habitat

Prevent agricultural monopoly and hold proven abuses accountable

Farmers need protection from coercive dependence on suppliers and from proven abuses of market power.

Farmers depend on suppliers and buyers, so control over agricultural markets affects their choices. Existing antitrust law addresses unlawful monopolization and other anticompetitive conduct. This proposal concerns preventing coercive market control and establishing responsibility for proven abuses, with evidence and due process.

The Solution

We would prevent monopoly control in agriculture and impose meaningful consequences for proven abuses.

Evidence, rights and funding: Requiring companies to sell parts of their businesses, or holding individuals responsible, would require evidence, lawful authority and due process. This framework establishes no named organization’s guilt. Funding for grants, seed banks, research and compensation must be transparent and respect each person’s binding direction of their full tax contribution, including their choice not to fund spending they oppose. Criminal liability requires applicable law and due process; new reforms cannot retroactively make past conduct a crime.

Still to Decide

The rules still need to spell out seed and farmer rights, competition standards, investigations and remedies, as well as the treatment of existing patents and licenses during the transition. Possible approaches include an independent truth and accountability commission to investigate wrongdoing and responsibility, limits on market concentration, a food-sovereignty review body focused on control over food production, transparent safety-data requirements and compensation for demonstrated harm to farmers. Investigative powers, market thresholds, funding and remedies remain undecided.

Source: Department of Justice: The antitrust laws, USDA: Seed markets, intellectual property and farmer choices

Ban glyphosate and defined related pesticides

A pesticide ban needs to say exactly what it covers and how people would make the transition.

Glyphosate is a herbicide, a type of pesticide used to control weeds in farming and other settings. A ban would change which weed-control substances people could use, so its scope and the transition matter to farms and other users.

The Solution

We would ban glyphosate and additional similar pesticides.

Still to Decide

The additional substances still need to be defined. We also need to decide which uses are covered, when the ban takes effect, how existing stocks would be handled and how the rules would be enforced. The transition needs alternatives and clearly defined exceptions, if any, while preserving the commitment to a ban rather than voluntary reduction.

Source: EPA: Glyphosate uses and regulatory information

Work in Progress

Protect ordinary household resource use

Using resources at home needs different rules from large-scale extraction or land clearing.

Generating solar power, collecting roof runoff and growing a garden are everyday household uses of resources. They can intersect with shared resources and local rules; rainwater collection, for example, may require a state or local permit. The question is which household uses should have protection and where other rights or environmental harms set limits.

The protections we are considering: We are considering protections for ordinary household solar energy, rooftop rainwater collection, gardens and responsible use of resources people own.

Rights and environmental limits: Rules would need to address material pollution, erosion, harm to underground water supplies and harm downstream in proportion to the damage or risk. Large water diversions, resource extraction or land clearing would need a separate review of their effects. Household protections would not create an unlimited right to extract resources.

Still to Decide

We still need to define the scope of these protections. Owning the surface of land does not by itself settle water rights, mineral rights, tribal rights, conservation restrictions or other rights.

Source: Department of Energy: Alternative water sources