To make projects in certain counties eligible for funding under the rural surface transportation grant program, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 22, 2025
Bottom line
H.R. 3572 dedicates a portion of federal rural transportation grants to improve roads in highly productive agricultural regions, aiming to bolster agricultural supply chains.
What it actually does
This bill amends the rural surface transportation grant program by creating a new category of eligible projects: those located on "farm-to-market roads" within "covered counties." It defines a "covered county" as one with an annual gross agricultural production value of at least $1,000,000,000 and agricultural production of at least $500,000 per square mile. The bill reserves 10 percent of the program's annual funding specifically for these projects and mandates the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to create and annually update a list of these eligible counties.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill addresses a critical need for infrastructure investment in key agricultural areas, ensuring that products can efficiently reach markets. They contend that improving these specific "farm-to-market roads" will reduce transportation costs, enhance food supply chain resilience, and support the economic vitality of rural communities heavily reliant on agriculture. By reserving funds, it guarantees that these vital roads receive necessary attention, which might otherwise be overlooked in broader competitive grant processes.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that reserving 10 percent of funds for a specific subset of rural counties could divert resources from other rural areas with significant transportation needs but lower agricultural output. They might contend that the criteria for "covered counties" are too narrow, potentially excluding other deserving rural communities, or that it creates an unfair advantage for certain regions over others within the existing rural grant program. Some may also argue that the existing program is sufficient to address these needs without a dedicated carve-out, potentially reducing the overall flexibility of the grant program.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it easy for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 1(1), amending 23 U.S.C. 173(a)
Establishment of Definitions for Agricultural-Centric Eligibility
This provision introduces two new definitions crucial for the bill's operation. A "covered county" is defined by having at least $1 billion in annual gross agricultural production value and $500,000 per square mile in agricultural production, with these figures adjusted annually for inflation. A "farm-to-market road" is then defined as any road located within one of these newly designated "covered counties." These definitions establish the precise criteria for which areas and roads will be eligible for the new dedicated funding stream.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue these definitions precisely target areas where agricultural output is highest, ensuring that federal investment in "farm-to-market roads" directly supports the most productive segments of the agricultural economy. They contend that focusing on these specific metrics ensures efficient allocation of resources to areas with the greatest need for agricultural transportation infrastructure.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the specific thresholds for "covered counties" are arbitrary or too restrictive, potentially excluding other rural areas that also have significant agricultural activity but do not meet these high benchmarks. They may contend that such narrow definitions could lead to an uneven distribution of federal funds, favoring a select few regions over others with legitimate rural transportation needs.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between targeting funds to the most productive agricultural areas for maximum economic return versus ensuring equitable distribution of rural infrastructure funds across all rural areas, including those with lower but still important agricultural output.
Section 1(3), amending 23 U.S.C. 173(k)
Dedicated Funding for Farm-to-Market Road Projects
This provision mandates that 10 percent of the total funds made available for the rural surface transportation grant program each fiscal year must be reserved specifically for projects on "farm-to-market roads." This creates a dedicated, non-competitive funding stream for infrastructure improvements in the "covered counties" defined earlier, ensuring that a fixed portion of the program's budget is allocated to these agriculturally significant areas, regardless of other competing rural needs.
Section 1(4), adding 23 U.S.C. 173(p)
Creation and Annual Update of Covered County List
This provision directs the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to create and annually update an official list of "covered counties." This list will identify which counties meet the agricultural production criteria established in the bill, providing clarity and transparency for potential grant applicants. The annual update ensures that eligibility is regularly reassessed based on current agricultural data and economic conditions.