HR-4134-119
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Sponsored by Ashley Hinson (R-IA)
What it does
This bill would amend the Food Security Act of 1985 to explicitly add flood prevention, flood mitigation, and flood resiliency improvement as stated purposes of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). The RCPP is an existing USDA program that funds voluntary, partner-driven conservation projects on agricultural and other eligible land. The bill would also reorganize the program's existing natural resource purposes — soil, water, wildlife, and agricultural land conservation — into a cleaner list format while adding drought mitigation alongside flood-related goals.
Who benefits
Farmers and landowners in flood-prone regions who could access RCPP funding for flood mitigation projects on their land. Rural communities downstream from agricultural land that may experience reduced flooding. Conservation organizations and state agencies that partner with USDA on RCPP projects, as the expanded purpose could unlock new project eligibility. Local governments and water utilities that rely on watershed health for drinking water protection. Crop insurance programs and agricultural lenders who bear risk from flood-related crop losses.
Who is hurt
Existing RCPP applicants and partners focused on other conservation priorities (soil health, wildlife habitat, water quality) who may face increased competition for the same pool of RCPP funds if flood projects are prioritized. Taxpayers if the expanded purpose leads to increased program spending without a corresponding appropriation. Communities or regions with fewer flood concerns may see relatively less benefit from the program's expanded focus.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that flooding is one of the most costly and frequent natural disasters affecting U.S. agricultural land, with NOAA data showing flood events causing billions in annual crop and infrastructure losses. They contend that the RCPP's existing watershed-scale, partner-driven model is well-suited to flood mitigation — such as wetland restoration and cover cropping — and that explicitly authorizing this purpose removes ambiguity that has prevented eligible projects from moving forward. Bipartisan sponsorship by Representatives Hinson and Sorensen reflects the broad geographic reach of flood risk across farm states.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill expands the RCPP's mission without providing additional funding, meaning flood projects would compete directly with established conservation priorities like soil health and wildlife habitat that the program was originally designed to address. They contend that flood mitigation is already partially addressed through other federal programs — such as FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and USDA's Emergency Watershed Protection Program — and that adding it to the RCPP risks duplicating efforts, diluting program focus, and reducing effectiveness across all stated goals.
Constitutional context
This bill amends an existing federal agricultural conservation program authorized under Congress's broad spending and commerce powers. No significant constitutional tension is present; Congress has well-established authority to set the purposes of federal grant and conservation programs under the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and the Commerce Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), and Wickard v. Filburn (1942) affirmed broad federal reach over agricultural activity affecting interstate commerce.
Checks and balances
Congress gains modest authority by expanding the RCPP's statutory purposes; USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) retains administrative discretion over how funds are allocated among those purposes, subject to congressional appropriations oversight.
Historical precedent
The 2018 Farm Bill significantly expanded the RCPP's scope and funding structure, and prior Farm Bills have similarly amended the program's stated purposes to reflect evolving conservation priorities.