Skip to main content

Politicians make promises on their stump — we watch and hold them accountable.

Help keep the record honest →Create an account
ChampionedEnvironment

Advance the bipartisan Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act (introduced with Rep. Marcus Molinaro) to empower the Natural Resources Conservation Service to improve rural communities' access to federal flood-mitigation programs and enhance flood protection beyond pre-disaster levels.

Sources (click to view full provenance)

Propose an edit to this promise's details

Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.

Sign in to suggest a correction

Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.

Assessments

evidence-backed verdicts

These are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.

ChampionedFact-checker reviewConfidence: 85%

Verified via primary sources: Davis's own Aug 22, 2023 press release confirms he introduced the Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act with Rep. Molinaro (R-NY) and cosponsors Spanberger and Nunn, doing exactly what the promise describes (empowering NRCS/EWP to restore flood protection above pre-disaster conditions, national ag flood vulnerability study, reduced cost-share for limited-resource areas). A second primary source (Davis's Apr 30, 2026 press release on H.R. 7567) confirms 'provisions from H.R. 1858, Flooding Prevention, Assessment, and Restoration Act, introduced by Congressman Davis' were included in the House-passed Farm Bill, which Davis voted to advance. He is lead sponsor across two Congresses and drove language into a broader vehicle, but the standalone act has not been enacted and the Farm Bill has only cleared the House. That is textbook CHAMPIONED (+0.75), not FULL. The same standard would apply to any party; a Republican lead sponsor with identical record would rate identically.

Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)

Sign in to vote.

Discussion

community opinions

Comments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.

Sign in to join the discussion.

Propose a correction

community accountability

See an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.

Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.

Debate

sourced community arguments

These are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.

No arguments yet

Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.

Add a sourced argument

Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.

Sign in or create an account to add an argument.

StumpWatch is live, and the record is still growing. Many promises and positions aren’t tracked yet, and some features are still in beta. Add a sourced promise and help keep the record honest.

Help keep the record honest →