Supporting Small Farmers for NC's Future Act
House Bill 617, titled the Supporting Small Farmers for NC's Future Act, would create a new Small Farmers Support Grant Program within the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The program is intended to help small farmers remain financially viable by providing grants for eligible uses such as mechanized harvest equipment, farm infrastructure like fencing, and food processing equipment. The bill also establishes a Small Farmer Growth Fund to receive state appropriations and outside donations, and it directs the Department to adopt rules, set application procedures, prioritize awards based on need, and convene an advisory committee to monitor the program.
The bill appropriates $20 million in recurring General Fund money for fiscal year 2025-26 for the fund and related initiatives. Of that amount, $12 million would support the core grant program, $3 million would fund cold storage equipment grants, $4 million would go to the Carolina Farm Steward Association’s FarmsSHARE program, and $1 million would provide bridge loans to help farmers participate in USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service EQIP conservation contracts. The Department could retain up to 1% for administration and add up to two full-time positions in its Small Farmer Division.
In addition to the grant program, the bill lowers the income threshold for the state sales tax exemption for farmers. Under current law, the exemption applies to farmers meeting a minimum farming-income test; H617 would reduce that threshold from $10,000 to $7,500 for qualifying farmers and related conditional exemption certificates. The bill also updates related language for qualifying farmers, conditional exemption certificates, and disaster-related extensions, with the changes applying to exemption certificates issued on or after July 1, 2025.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of small and family farms, emphasizing barriers to entry, rising land prices, and consolidation in agriculture as reasons for state intervention. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the bill’s structure suggests a policy approach focused on direct financial assistance, tax relief, and conservation-program access for smaller producers.
Potential points of contention are likely to center on the size and recurring nature of the appropriation, the use of state funds for grants and bridge loans, and whether the lowered tax exemption threshold is appropriately targeted. Questions may also arise about how the Department will define and verify “small farmer” status, how grant priorities will be set, and whether the program favors certain types of farms or uses over others.
H617 would add a new grant-making article to Chapter 106 of the General Statutes, creating a state-run support program for small farmers and authorizing the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to administer grants, loans, and related oversight. It would also amend the state sales tax exemption statute for farmers in Chapter 105 by lowering the income threshold needed to qualify, thereby expanding access to tax relief for more farmers. The bill would require new administrative rules, advisory oversight, and state budget appropriations, while affecting farmers, farm-related nonprofits, and the Department itself.
The bill’s tone is broadly pro-agriculture and pro-small-farmer, with the stated goal of preserving family farms and improving long-term viability through grants and tax relief. The available materials do not include committee debate or votes, so there is no recorded opposition or support to characterize beyond the bill’s own findings and structure. On its face, the measure appears designed to attract support from farm advocates and rural constituencies concerned about consolidation, capital access, and farm succession.
The main likely areas of contention are fiscal and administrative: the bill commits $20 million in recurring funds, allows administrative spending, and creates new program infrastructure, which could draw scrutiny from budget-minded lawmakers. Another possible point of debate is eligibility and targeting, including the definition of a small farmer, the income thresholds for grants and tax exemptions, and the commissioner’s discretion to set priorities and tier grant amounts. Some may also question whether the bill’s benefits are sufficiently focused on the smallest or most distressed farms, or whether the program could overlap with existing federal and nonprofit assistance.