Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
This bill amends NRCS-related portions of the Food Security Act to change wetland compliance, appeals, and administrative procedures. Key changes include new evidentiary standards, prohibitions on retroactive penalties, expanded appeal rights and oversight mechanisms, customer surveys, and a ban on NRCS acquisition of permanent easements.
Progressives stress environmental harm; conservatives stress property rights and due process.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory reform package that meaningfully amends the Food Security Act to change burdens of proof, appeal rights, evidentiary rules, and oversight structures for NRCS wetland determinations while adding reporting and survey requirements.
This bill amends NRCS-related portions of the Food Security Act to change wetland compliance, appeals, and administrative procedures.
Key changes include new evidentiary standards, prohibitions on retroactive penalties, expanded appeal rights and oversight mechanisms, customer surveys, and a ban on NRCS acquisition of permanent easements.
The bill also requires additional notice-and-comment rulemaking for certain NRCS subtitles and mandates retraining and procedural changes for appeals.
Technocratic but politically loaded deregulatory package: plausible support among agricultural constituencies but significant opposition from environmental/regulatory stakeholders; easier as part of broader legislation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory reform package that meaningfully amends the Food Security Act to change burdens of proof, appeal rights, evidentiary rules, and oversight structures for NRCS wetland determinations while adding reporting and survey requirements.
Progressives stress environmental harm; conservatives stress property rights and due process.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives stress environmental harm; conservatives stress property rights and due process.
Likely critical.
Views the bill as shifting enforcement burdens away from the agency and weakening wetland protections, risking environmental harm.
Concerned about new oversight dominated by producers and the ban on permanent easements limiting conservation tools.
Mixed view.
Appreciates stronger due-process protections and clearer procedures for appeals while worrying the measure could unintentionally undermine wetland conservation and increase administrative burden.
Seeks balance between property rights and environmental goals.
Generally supportive.
Sees the bill as protecting landowners from regulatory overreach, providing due process, and increasing transparency and accountability in NRCS wetland decisions.
Values the prohibition on permanent easements.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic but politically loaded deregulatory package: plausible support among agricultural constituencies but significant opposition from environmental/regulatory stakeholders; easier as part of broader legislation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives stress environmental harm; conservatives stress property rights and due process.
Technocratic but politically loaded deregulatory package: plausible support among agricultural constituencies but significant opposition fr…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive statutory reform package that meaningfully amends the Food Security Act to change burdens of proof, appeal rights, evidentiary rules, and oversight s…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.