Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
Amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to reauthorize and expand the Water Source Protection Program. The bill broadens eligible partners, defines “adjacent land,” sets project priorities (drought, wildfire, water quality, nature-based solutions), raises authorized funding to $30 million annually, requires a minimum 20% non‑Federal contribution (waivable), and directs a 10% set‑aside for partner technical assistance.
Support for increased federal funding versus fiscal restraint concerns
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that reauthorizes and expands the Water Source Protection Program by adding eligible partners, clarifying purposes and priorities, setting funding levels and a partner set-aside, and adding protections for adjacent non‑Federal land.
Amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to reauthorize and expand the Water Source Protection Program.
The bill broadens eligible partners, defines “adjacent land,” sets project priorities (drought, wildfire, water quality, nature-based solutions), raises authorized funding to $30 million annually, requires a minimum 20% non‑Federal contribution (waivable), and directs a 10% set‑aside for partner technical assistance.
It also strengthens watershed condition protections, authorizes additional appropriations, requires owner consent for work on adjacent non‑Federal land, and preserves State and other water law and non‑Federal landownership safeguards.
Program reauthorizations with modest funding and clear safeguards often advance, but passage depends on calendar, negotiations, and actual appropriation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that reauthorizes and expands the Water Source Protection Program by adding eligible partners, clarifying purposes and priorities, setting funding levels and a partner set-aside, and adding protections for adjacent non‑Federal land. It integrates with existing statutory frameworks and includes several practical safeguards.
Support for increased federal funding versus fiscal restraint concerns
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Support for increased federal funding versus fiscal restraint concerns
Likely broadly supportive.
The bill increases funding, prioritizes climate and wildfire resilience, directs benefits to disadvantaged communities, and promotes nature‑based solutions and non‑Federal partner leadership.
Generally supportive but pragmatic.
Appreciates targeted funding for risk reduction and partner leadership, while watching fiscal impacts and implementation clarity.
Wants safeguards to avoid duplication and ensure measurable results.
Skeptical.
Opposed to increased federal spending and potential expansion of federal activities affecting non‑Federal land, despite owner‑consent and explicit non‑preemption language.
Concerned about regulatory complexity and recurring appropriations.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Program reauthorizations with modest funding and clear safeguards often advance, but passage depends on calendar, negotiations, and actual appropriation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Support for increased federal funding versus fiscal restraint concerns
Program reauthorizations with modest funding and clear safeguards often advance, but passage depends on calendar, negotiations, and actual…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused substantive amendment that reauthorizes and expands the Water Source Protection Program by adding eligible partners, clarifying purposes and priorities,…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.