PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 4, 2017
Water Quality Conservation Act of 2017
This bill amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to authorize the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to carry out a precision conservation pilot program to provide grants to up to 10 states to assist producers with projects that: increase nutrient retention in soil, reduce soil erosion, reduce nutrient loss from soil, improve soil health, and improve water quality.
States that receive grants under the program must use the funds only to: educate and recruit agricultural producers to participate in the program, provide technical and financial assistance to producers that elect to participate in the program, monitor and analyze the effectiveness of precision conservation plans, and encourage the use of precision agriculture technology to achieve conservation benefits.
States that receive grants must submit to USDA and producers reports regarding the effectiveness of the conservation plans and grants. USDA must use the data to establish and maintain a publicly available soil nutrient retention database.
People & committees
Rep. Young, David [R-IA-3] · R–IA
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.3646 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.3646 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.3646 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.3646 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.