HR-2401-119
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would formally authorize and require the EPA, Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture — along with up to 14 other federal agencies — to maintain the Urban Waters Federal Partnership Program. The program coordinates federal resources to help reconnect urban and suburban communities, particularly those that are economically distressed, with local waterways through technical assistance, project funding, and community engagement. The bill would authorize $10 million per year for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and require annual progress reports to Congress.
Who benefits
Residents of low-income and economically distressed urban communities near waterways who would gain access to cleaner water, recreational spaces, and habitat improvements. Local governments and nonprofits that would receive federal technical and financial assistance. Environmental and conservation organizations working in urban areas. Public health advocates, as improved water quality may reduce exposure to contaminants. Tribal nations with urban water interests. Universities and research institutions eligible for program funding. Recreational businesses (kayaking, fishing, tourism) near restored urban waterways. Urban Waters ambassadors who would receive funded coordination roles.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who fund the $10 million annual authorization. Industrial or commercial property owners near designated partnership locations who may face increased scrutiny or regulatory attention as a result of heightened federal presence. Competing federal programs or agencies that may see discretionary funding redirected toward Urban Waters priorities. Communities not designated as partnership locations, who may receive less federal attention despite similar water quality challenges.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Urban Waters Federal Partnership Program has already demonstrated results at dozens of locations nationwide, and that codifying it in statute protects the program from administrative elimination — as nearly occurred in prior years when the program lost federal support. They contend that overburdened urban communities disproportionately lack access to clean, safe waterways, and that coordinating 15 federal agencies under one framework maximizes the impact of existing appropriations without creating a large new bureaucracy. At $10 million per year, they argue the program delivers outsized value by leveraging additional non-federal resources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that codifying a voluntary interagency coordination program into a statutory mandate adds bureaucratic overhead — including a new steering committee, annual reports, and interagency financing mechanisms — without clear evidence that the program produces measurable water quality improvements beyond what existing Clean Water Act and agency programs already achieve. They contend that $50 million over five years directed to a coordination-focused program may duplicate efforts already funded through EPA grants, HUD community development programs, and Army Corps of Engineers projects, and that the bill's broad eligible entity list and flexible spending authority limit accountability for results.