PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 13, 2017
Wetland Determinations Efficiency and Transparency Act
This bill amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to revise the process that the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) uses to make a wetland determination, delineation, or certification.
The NRCS must make a determination, delineation, or certification within 60 days. If the NRCS misses the deadline, it must provide a reasonable transition period for a person to come into compliance with the decision without losing eligibility for certain payments and loans.
A decision is subject to judicial review, and a person is not required to exhaust all administrative remedies prior to bringing a suit in federal court. In the case of a dispute, the NRCS must bear the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence and provide a copy of the agency record upon request.
The Department of Agriculture (USDA) must permit a person to secure technical assistance from an approved source, other than the NRCS, for the preparation of: (1) a conservation plan or similar plan required as a condition for USDA assistance, and (2) a wetland delineation or determination.
People & committees
Rep. Noem, Kristi L. [R-SD-At Large] · R–SD
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 and Forestry.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. 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.3235 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.3235 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.3235 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.3235 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.