H.R.1858 - Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1858, the Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act, aims to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 to enhance the emergency watershed program and address flood vulnerabilities in agriculture. The bill directs the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake measures that increase the level of protection above addressing immediate impairment if it benefits long-term watershed health and is cost-effective. It also mandates a national agriculture flood vulnerability study to assess flood risks on agricultural lands.
Furthermore, the bill focuses on rehabilitating structural measures near or past their evaluated life expectancy under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. This includes increasing the federal cost share for rehabilitation projects from 65% to 90%.
The bill is sponsored by Mr. Davis of North Carolina and others, and was introduced in the House of Representatives, referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Expected Effects
The bill will likely lead to increased investment in watershed protection and flood prevention measures, particularly in agricultural areas. The national study will provide data to inform future policy and resource allocation related to flood risk management.
The increased federal cost share for rehabilitation projects could incentivize more communities to undertake necessary infrastructure improvements. This could reduce the economic impact of flooding on agricultural production.
Potential Benefits
- Enhanced protection of agricultural lands and watersheds from flooding.
- Improved long-term health and resilience of watersheds.
- Data-driven policy decisions based on the national agriculture flood vulnerability study.
- Increased investment in rehabilitation of aging water infrastructure.
- Potential reduction in economic losses for farmers and ranchers due to flooding.
Potential Disadvantages
- Potential for increased government spending on watershed programs and infrastructure rehabilitation.
- Possible delays in project implementation due to bureaucratic processes.
- Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mitigation activities.
- Potential for unintended environmental consequences from watershed restoration projects.
- The study may reveal vulnerabilities that require significant investment to address.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the General Welfare Clause (Article I, Section 8) of the Constitution, which allows Congress to provide for the general welfare of the United States through legislation. The focus on agricultural viability and food security also indirectly supports this clause.
There are no apparent conflicts with individual rights or liberties as defined in the Bill of Rights. The bill's emphasis on data-driven decision-making and cost-effectiveness suggests an effort to use resources responsibly.
However, the extent of federal intervention in local watershed management could raise questions about the balance of power between the federal government and the states, although the bill does not explicitly address this issue.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).