The Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act amends the Food Security Act of 1985 to add flood prevention and mitigation measures to the purposes of the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). It explicitly expands the program’s aims to include flood resiliency and drought mitigation alongside soil conservation, water protection, wildlife, and agricultural land conservation.
The bill also clarifies that these aims apply to eligible land on a regional or watershed scale, and it codifies the integration of flood risk reduction into conservation planning. The expansion could broaden project eligibility and shift how RCPP funds are directed toward flood-related projects and water-resource protection.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends paragraph (2) of section 1271(b)(2) of the Food Security Act to add four explicit purposes: soil conservation, water protection (including drinking water and groundwater), prevention and mitigation of flooding and drought with improved flood resiliency, and wildlife/agricultural land conservation.
Who It Affects
Eligible landowners and organizations participating in the RCPP, NRCS field offices, and watershed partnerships that plan and implement conservation projects.
Why It Matters
It formalizes flood risk reduction as a core conservation objective, potentially expanding project scopes, funding, and collaborative approaches across regions.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 1 names the act as the Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act. Section 2 broadens the RCPP by amending the program’s purposes to explicitly include flood prevention and mitigation, drought mitigation, and the improvement of flood resiliency, in addition to existing goals like soil conservation, water protection, and wildlife/land conservation.
These purposes apply to eligible land on regional or watershed scales, and they cover the conservation of water resources, including drinking water and groundwater. The effect is to allow and encourage RCPP projects that integrate flood risk reduction with land and water stewardship, broadening the program’s reach beyond traditional soil-and-water conservation into flood resilience and drought mitigation.
The bill does not create new funding or mandates; it clarifies and expands how RCPP projects may be framed within existing authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds flood prevention and mitigation as purposes of the RCPP.
Section 1271(b)(2) is amended to include flood resiliency and drought mitigation.
Projects are to address regional or watershed-scale land management.
Wildlife and agricultural land conservation remain part of the program’s aims.
The act carries the short title: Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Section 1 establishes the act’s short title, the Flood Resiliency and Land Stewardship Act, for reference in subsequent sections. This naming facilitates clear, consistent references in policy discussions and implementation planning.
RCPP purposes expanded to include flood resilience
Section 2 amends Section 1271(b)(2) of the Food Security Act to read that the Regional Conservation Partnership Program may address: (A) soil conservation, (B) water protection including drinking water and groundwater, (C) the prevention and mitigation of flooding and drought and the improvement or expansion of flood resiliency, and (D) conservation of wildlife, agricultural land, and related resources. This broadens the program’s scope to explicitly incorporate flood risk reduction and drought resilience alongside existing conservation priorities, with an emphasis on regional or watershed-scale applications. The change signals a shift toward integrated land- and water-resource stewardship that aligns flood resilience with conservation outcomes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- RCPP participants—landowners and operators who implement flood-related conservation practices under the program—and their consortia, which gain expanded project opportunities and potential access to broader funding streams.
- NRCS field offices and state conservation agencies, which gain a formal mandate to coordinate flood risk reduction within conservation planning, potentially enhancing collaboration with local watershed groups.
- Watershed partnerships, regional coalitions, and land trusts that focus on flood resilience, water protection, and habitat restoration as part of watershed-scale projects.
- Public water utilities and communities reliant on flood protection and groundwater protection, which stand to benefit from integrated land- and water-resource management.
- Wildlife managers and agricultural producers who benefit from holistic landscape restoration that supports biodiversity and farm productivity.
Who Bears the Cost
- NRCS and partner organizations may incur higher administrative costs to administer an expanded program scope.
- Participating landowners may incur upfront or longer-term costs to implement flood-related practices and meet new project requirements.
- Federal and state budgets may need to accommodate expanded funding demands within the RCPP, potentially competing with other conservation priorities.
- Local and state agencies coordinating with federal program resources may face added costs for cross-jurisdictional collaboration and reporting.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is balancing a regional/watershed-scale flood resilience mandate with the practical limits of federal funding, staffing, and local landowner compliance, raising questions about how to measure success and allocate resources across competing conservation priorities.
The expansion raises questions about capacity and prioritization. While it broadens the scope of eligible projects, it also stretches the resources of the RCPP and the agencies that administer it.
Effective implementation will depend on clear project selection criteria, consistent funding, and robust interagency coordination across riversheds and regions. A key risk is establishing measurable outcomes for flood resilience across diverse hydrological contexts, as well as integrating these outcomes with existing soil, water, wildlife, and agricultural objectives.
The bill provides a framework, but implementation would require careful planning, data, and governance to prevent dilution of existing priorities or gaps in accountability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.