Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 13.
This bill amends Section 125 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise implementation rules for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program. It clarifies that the Director may fund eligible projects via grants, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, contracts, or other mechanisms.
Match requirement: seen as local buy‑in (centrist/right) versus burden (left)
Narrow, technical, regionally focused and administratively simple—likely to attract bipartisan support in the House.
This bill amends Section 125 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise implementation rules for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program.
It clarifies that the Director may fund eligible projects via grants, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, contracts, or other mechanisms.
Non‑Federal recipients may receive up to 75 percent of project costs from the program, requiring at least a 25 percent non‑Federal cost share.
Content is narrow and technical with modest fiscal impact and bipartisan-appealing features, but needs appropriations and possible Senate procedures.
How solid the drafting looks.
Match requirement: seen as local buy‑in (centrist/right) versus burden (left)
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Match requirement: seen as local buy‑in (centrist/right) versus burden (left)
Generally supportive because it strengthens and clarifies funding for San Francisco Bay restoration and includes nonprofits and the Estuary Partnership.
Concerned that a 25 percent non‑Federal match could burden underfunded local governments, tribes, or community groups.
Cautious about how the ‘‘foreign country of concern’’ exclusion might affect academic or international research collaborations.
Favorable overall as a targeted, programmatic clarification that promotes stewardship while requiring local contribution.
Wants fiscal clarity: authorizations, cost estimates, and implementation guidance.
Will look for guardrails to avoid unintended exclusion of legitimate partners.
Mixed to somewhat opposed: appreciates the cap (75% federal) and national‑security exclusion, but skeptical about expanding federal grantmaking and using federal dollars for regional environmental projects.
Prefers stronger limits on grants to private entities and clearer fiscal offsets.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Content is narrow and technical with modest fiscal impact and bipartisan-appealing features, but needs appropriations and possible Senate procedures.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Match requirement: seen as local buy‑in (centrist/right) versus burden (left)
Content is narrow and technical with modest fiscal impact and bipartisan-appealing features, but needs appropriations and possible Senate p…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.