PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 5, 2025
Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act
This bill expands Department of Agriculture (USDA) watershed programs.
Under the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program, the bill allows USDA to undertake certain measures that go beyond addressing the immediate impairment of the watershed. Specifically, USDA may undertake measures that increase the level of protection of the watershed if USDA determines that the restoration is (1) in the best interest of the long-term health and the protection of the watershed from repetitive impairments; and (2) cost-effective and appropriate, given risks to the environment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
As background, the EWP Program assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff retardation and erosion prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by natural disasters.
In addition, for Watershed Rehabilitation Program projects, the bill increases the federal cost-share to 90%, from 65%, of the total rehabilitation costs. The Watershed Rehabilitation Program assists project sponsors in rehabilitating aging watershed dams that are reaching the end of their design life or no longer meet federal or state safety criteria or performance standards.
The bill also exempts rehabilitation projects under the Watershed Rehabilitation Program from a requirement that specifies that each project must contain benefits directly related to agriculture, including rural communities, that account for at least 20% of the total benefits of the project.
USDA must also submit a national agriculture flood vulnerability report to Congress that contains the results of a conservation effects assessment project that studies flood risk on agricultural lands.
People & committees
Rep. Davis, Donald G. [D-NC-1] · D–NC
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 18, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1858 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1858 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1858 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1858 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-05 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This bill would allow watershed restoration to provide more protection than needed to address immediate damage, subject to long-term protection, cost-effectiveness and environmental conditions. It would require the Agriculture Department to report to Congress on flood risks to agricultural land, including crop and livestock losses and ways to manage flooding. It would also expressly except section 14 rehabilitation projects from a project-content requirement and replace “65 percent” with “90 percent” in another watershed rehabilitation provision. The supplied text does not reproduce the underlying requirement or establish what the percentage measures, so the practical effects of those amendments remain uncertain.
the Secretary may undertake measures that increase the level of protection above that which would be necessary to address the immediate impairment of the watershed if the Secretary determines that such restoration is— (1) in the best interest of the long-term health and the protection of the watershed from repetitive impairments; and (2) cost-effective and appropriate, given risks to the environment.
the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a national agriculture flood vulnerability report containing the results of a conservation effects assessment project studying flood risk on agricultural lands
an analysis of economic losses of crops and livestock resulting from flooding under different recurrence scenarios
recommendations for additional practices and initiatives to further address such impact and risk.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is amended— (1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1002), by striking respectively. and all that follows through must contain and inserting respectively. Each project, other than a rehabilitation project under section 14, must contain; and (2) in section 14(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1012(b)(2)), by striking 65 percent and inserting 90 percent.
The proposed short title is the Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act.
This Act may be cited as the Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act.
For the emergency watershed program, the bill would permit, rather than require, restoration beyond what is needed to address immediate watershed damage. The Secretary would first have to determine that the work serves the watershed's long-term health and protection against repeated damage, and is cost-effective and appropriate given environmental risks.
2. Emergency watershed program Section 403 of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 (16 U.S.C. 2203) is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) Level of restoration In carrying out this section, the Secretary may undertake measures that increase the level of protection above that which would be necessary to address the immediate impairment of the watershed if the Secretary determines that such restoration is— (1) in the best interest of the long-term health and the protection of the watershed from repetitive impairments; and (2) cost-effective and appropriate, given risks to the environment.
Within two years after enactment, the Secretary of Agriculture would have to submit a national agricultural flood-risk report to the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee. It would contain results from a conservation effects assessment project studying flood risk on agricultural land.
Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate a national agriculture flood vulnerability report containing the results of a conservation effects assessment project studying flood risk on agricultural lands
The report would have to analyze crop and livestock losses under different assumptions about how often floods occur. It would also examine downstream effects of activities intended to reduce flooding harm as part of a watershed management approach.
(1) an analysis of economic losses of crops and livestock resulting from flooding under different recurrence scenarios; (2) an analysis of the downstream effects of mitigation activities carried out as part of a watershed management approach;
The report would have to analyze available federal and state flood-risk data applicable to agricultural land. Required topics include river and coastal flooding, storm surge, extreme precipitation and flash flooding.
(3) an analysis of available Federal and State data relating to flood risk, as applicable to agricultural land, including data relating to riverine flooding, coastal flooding, storm surge, extreme precipitation, and flash flooding;
The report would have to describe agricultural producers' ongoing conservation practices and broader government efforts to manage flooding impacts and risks within and across watersheds. It would also recommend additional practices and initiatives.
(4) a description of ongoing producer-level conservation practices and broader government initiatives to manage flooding impact and flood risk within and across watersheds, and recommendations for additional practices and initiatives to further address such impact and risk.
Section 4 would replace part of an existing project requirement with wording that expressly excepts rehabilitation projects under section 14. The supplied text does not reproduce what projects otherwise “must contain,” so the practical scope of this exception cannot be determined from the bundle.
(1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1002), by striking respectively. and all that follows through must contain and inserting respectively. Each project, other than a rehabilitation project under section 14, must contain;
Section 4 would also replace “65 percent” with “90 percent” in section 14(b)(2) of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. The surrounding statutory provision is not supplied, so the bundle does not establish what that percentage measures or how it operates.
The Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act is amended
(2) in section 14(b)(2) (16 U.S.C. 1012(b)(2)), by striking 65 percent and inserting 90 percent.
The supplied action snapshot, updated September 18, 2026, records introduction and referral to the House Agriculture Committee on March 5, 2025, followed by referral to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology on March 28, 2025. This snapshot does not establish subsequent legislative action or enactment.
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-18T14:27:30Z. 2025-03-28: Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology. 2025-03-05: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2025-03-05: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-05. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Evidence is limited
Missing statutory context prevents a firm determination of materially preferential treatment. The cited finding is tentative.
The proposed replacement wording expressly excepts section 14 rehabilitation projects from a project-content requirement. This is a possible targeted exception within the bill's watershed policy. Because the underlying requirement and deleted language are omitted, the bundle does not establish its practical benefit or whether it creates a new exception.
(1) in section 2 (16 U.S.C. 1002), by striking respectively. and all that follows through must contain and inserting respectively. Each project, other than a rehabilitation project under section 14, must contain;
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 18, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI