Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to reauthorize the sewer overflow and stormwater reuse municipal grant program by specifying an authorization of appropriations of $350,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026 through 2031. The text replaces the existing paragraph in subsection (f) of Section 221 to set that annual authorized funding level.
Size and sufficiency of funding: liberals see $350M/year as helpful but possibly insufficient; conservatives see any new authorization as excessive federal spending.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive amendment that clearly and precisely sets annual authorization levels for an existing grant program but provides minimal narrative, accountability, or contingency detail.
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act) to reauthorize the sewer overflow and stormwater reuse municipal grant program by specifying an authorization of appropriations of $350,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026 through 2031.
The text replaces the existing paragraph in subsection (f) of Section 221 to set that annual authorized funding level.
The bill authorizes funding but does not itself appropriate the money or spell out additional allocation details in the provided text.
By content alone the bill is a modest, administratively straightforward reauthorization of an existing grant program—a type of measure that often can be enacted, particularly when folded into larger appropriations or infrastructure packages. The major barrier is fiscal: authorization does not guarantee appropriation, and multi-year spending authorizations can face scrutiny. Because it is narrowly tailored and low on ideological controversy, it has a reasonable chance of becoming law if sponsors can secure a vehicle for appropriations or include it in a broader bipartisan package.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive amendment that clearly and precisely sets annual authorization levels for an existing grant program but provides minimal narrative, accountability, or contingency detail.
Size and sufficiency of funding: liberals see $350M/year as helpful but possibly insufficient; conservatives see any new authorization as excessive federal spending.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Size and sufficiency of funding: liberals see $350M/year as helpful but possibly insufficient; conservatives see any new authorization as excessive federal spending.
A mainstream liberal would likely view this bill favorably as a targeted federal investment to reduce sewer overflows, improve water quality, expand stormwater reuse, and help frontline communities disproportionately affected by polluted runoff.
They would see it as consistent with priorities for environmental protection, public health, climate resilience, and infrastructure spending.
They would likely press for strong equity, labor, and environmental justice provisions in program implementation and for sufficient funding to meet community needs.
A centrist/moderate would generally view the bill as a pragmatic, targeted federal investment to address a clear environmental and public-health problem, while noting that authorization is only the first step and actual impact depends on future appropriations and program administration.
They would value measurable outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and flexibility for small utilities.
They may be cautious about added federal spending without clear performance metrics and budget offsets but see the practical benefits of reducing sewer overflows and avoiding future regulatory noncompliance costs.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of expanding federal authorization for grant spending, expressing concerns about federal overreach, fiscal responsibility, and whether federal grants come with burdensome conditions.
They may nevertheless acknowledge the local benefits of addressing sewer overflows and could accept modest, time-limited federal assistance if it preserves local control and limits new federal regulatory strings.
Overall, they would prefer state-led solutions, tighter budget discipline, and clearer offsets for new spending.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
By content alone the bill is a modest, administratively straightforward reauthorization of an existing grant program—a type of measure that often can be enacted, particularly when folded into larger appropriations or infrastructure packages. The major barrier is fiscal: authorization does not guarantee appropriation, and multi-year spending authorizations can face scrutiny. Because it is narrowly tailored and low on ideological controversy, it has a reasonable chance of becoming law if sponsors can secure a vehicle for appropriations or include it in a broader bipartisan package.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Size and sufficiency of funding: liberals see $350M/year as helpful but possibly insufficient; conservatives see any new authorization as e…
By content alone the bill is a modest, administratively straightforward reauthorization of an existing grant program—a type of measure that…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive amendment that clearly and precisely sets annual authorization levels for an existing grant program but provides minimal narrative,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.