Federal rural road funding now reserved for only the highest-production farm counties
H.R. 3572 — To make projects in certain counties eligible for funding under the rural surface transportation grant program, and for other purposes. · Filed by David Valadao (R-CA) · 7 cosponsors · Introduced May 21, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends the rural surface transportation grant program to create a new funding stream for roads in high-agricultural-production counties. It defines 'covered counties' as those with at least $1 billion in annual agricultural production value and at least $500,000 per square mile in agricultural output, and reserves 10% of annual program funds for grants on 'farm-to-market roads' within those counties. The Secretary of Transportation, working with the Secretary of Agriculture, must maintain and update a list of eligible counties annually.
Why we flagged it
The bill creates a dedicated funding stream within an existing rural transportation program, reserving 10% of annual appropriations for roads in counties meeting a high agricultural-production threshold. This is a sector-specific carve-out that narrows the program's scope from general rural transportation to infrastructure serving high-volume agricultural regions.
What the text implies
- The $1 billion annual production threshold and $500k-per-square-mile requirement will likely limit eligibility to a small number of counties in the Corn Belt, Great Plains, and California Central Valley—concentrating federal transportation dollars in regions with industrial-scale agriculture rather than distributing them across rural America.
- The inflation adjustment tied to the Consumer Price Index may erode the real threshold over time if agricultural commodity prices rise faster than general inflation, potentially narrowing the eligible county pool further.
- By reserving 10% of program funds for farm-to-market roads, the bill reduces the pool available for other rural transportation projects (bridges, safety improvements, transit) in counties that do not meet the agricultural threshold.
- The requirement for annual consultation between DOT and USDA and an updated eligible-county list creates administrative overhead and potential for political pressure to adjust thresholds or definitions in future years.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Rural counties with significant agricultural output gain dedicated federal transportation funding, which may improve rural infrastructure and farm-to-market connectivity. However, the bill concentrates this benefit on counties meeting a very high production threshold ($1 billion annually, $500k per square mile), potentially excluding less-productive rural areas and smaller farming communities from this dedicated funding stream, creating a two-tier rural transportation system.
Who stands to gain
- large-scale agricultural operations and agribusiness in high-production counties
- agricultural equipment manufacturers and farm service providers (indirect, via improved farm-to-mark
- construction and engineering firms bidding on rural road projects in eligible counties
Named in the bill
U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 23 U.S.C. § 173 (Rural Surface Transportation Grant Program), Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index
Where it stands
7 cosponsors: 6 Democrats, 1 Republicans.
- May 21, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- May 21, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
Money around this bill
1 lobbying clients named this bill on 1 disclosure filings across 1 quarter, Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $130,000 in lobbying spend. A filing names 17 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.
More lobbying clients named this bill than 0% of bills with at least one filing.
David Valadao, the sponsor, reported $2,024,902 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Santa Clara Valley Water District — $130,000 on 1 filing
Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 17, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (1,401 characters) on Jun 8, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Jun 2026 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 17, 2026 · page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal rural road funding now reserved for only the highest-production farm counties” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr3572 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.