Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
The bill amends title 54 to reauthorize and adjust the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund through 2033, increase annual deposits to $2.0 billion, expand eligible lands, require prioritized project lists, encourage and credit public donations, allow alternate allocations if appropriations lapse, direct disposal of obsolete constructed assets on deferred maintenance lists, and require a report and preventative maintenance plan from covered agencies within one year.
Donation-linked prioritization: equity concerns (left) vs pragmatic leverage (right)
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted statutory amendment package that clearly modifies funding levels, allocation rules, donation handling, and reporting obligations for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and integrates cleanly into Title 54.
The bill amends title 54 to reauthorize and adjust the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund through 2033, increase annual deposits to $2.0 billion, expand eligible lands, require prioritized project lists, encourage and credit public donations, allow alternate allocations if appropriations lapse, direct disposal of obsolete constructed assets on deferred maintenance lists, and require a report and preventative maintenance plan from covered agencies within one year.
Narrow, administrative reauthorization with popular subject matter and modest tweaks; fiscal increase and allocation mechanics are main points of friction.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted statutory amendment package that clearly modifies funding levels, allocation rules, donation handling, and reporting obligations for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund and integrates cleanly into Title 54. It provides specific mechanisms and identifies responsible entities and some timelines.
Donation-linked prioritization: equity concerns (left) vs pragmatic leverage (right)
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Donation-linked prioritization: equity concerns (left) vs pragmatic leverage (right)
Generally supportive of renewed, increased funding to address deferred maintenance across parks, refuges, forests, BLM lands, and Bureau of Indian Education schools.
Concerned that prioritizing projects tied to private donations could bias investments toward wealthier sites and shift public responsibility onto private donors.
Supportive of reauthorization and increased, predictable funding paired with accountability measures.
Will seek clarity on implementation details, equity of allocations, and confirmation that new processes won’t create unfunded mandates or governance conflicts.
Mixed view: appreciates attention to clearing deferred maintenance and disposal of unused assets, and accepts public donations.
Wary of increased mandatory deposits, expanded federal program scope, and potential executive allocation authority if appropriations lapse.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow, administrative reauthorization with popular subject matter and modest tweaks; fiscal increase and allocation mechanics are main points of friction.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Donation-linked prioritization: equity concerns (left) vs pragmatic leverage (right)
Narrow, administrative reauthorization with popular subject matter and modest tweaks; fiscal increase and allocation mechanics are main poi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted statutory amendment package that clearly modifies funding levels, allocation rules, donation handling, and reporting obligations for the National P…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.