Joe Neguse (D-CO)
Aquatic Restoration and Conservation Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Aquatic Restoration and Conservation Act. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior to jointly develop a strategy within one year. This strategy will increase the use of aquatic restoration and conservation activities to help mitigate wildfire risks and aid in post-fire recovery on federal lands. The Secretaries must consult with State, Tribal, and local governments while building this strategy. They are also required to assess workforce training capacity and look at the best available scientific information. Finally, a report describing the completed strategy must be sent to specific congressional committees within 30 days of its completion.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +6
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
The legislation requires federal land management agencies to incorporate aquatic restoration and conservation into long-term land management and wildfire recovery activities.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill mandates a joint strategy by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to increase aquatic restoration and conservation for wildfire mitigation and post-fire recovery.
- Scored +4
Does this invest in rural communities?
The bill requires consultation with state, local, and Tribal governments to improve watershed health and wildfire risk reduction on federal lands that often border rural communities.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Under Section 2(a), the Secretaries must consult with State, Tribal, and local governments and relevant stakeholders to jointly develop a strategy. This could positively benefit local communities by giving them a voice in wildfire risk mitigation and post-fire recovery plans.
-
Under Section 2(b)(3), the Secretaries are required to assess the workforce training and development capacity of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. This could lead to positive outcomes by building up job skills and workforce capacity for people working within these departments.
-
Under Section 2(c), the Secretaries may enter into cooperative agreements or mutual benefit agreements with groups like Indian Tribes, the National Park Foundation, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. This provision could benefit these groups and Tribes by allowing them to directly collaborate with the federal government on the strategy.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific provisions identified that explicitly create negative consequences, burdens, or harms for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — The legislation requires federal land management agencies to incorporate aquatic restoration and conservation into long-term land management and wildfire recovery activities. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill mandates a joint strategy by the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to increase aquatic restoration and conservation for wildfire mitigation and post-fire recovery. Does this invest in rural communities? — The bill requires consultation with state, local, and Tribal governments to improve watershed health and wildfire risk reduction on federal lands that often border rural communities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill specifically mandates consultation with Tribal governments and allows for cooperative agreements with Indian Tribes. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — The legislation addresses wildfire risk mitigation and post-fire recovery on federal lands, which directly benefits nearby rural communities. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improved watershed health and wildfire mitigation can positively impact agricultural operations and water availability in affected regions.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — The bill mandates a comprehensive report detailing the developed strategy be submitted to relevant congressional committees within 30 days of its completion. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — The legislation requires formal consultation with State, Tribal, and local governments in the development of the national strategy.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — The bill requires the Secretaries to assess and consider the best available scientific information and address any related research gaps in aquatic restoration.
- 10/26/2026
- Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, 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.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Brittany PettersenDemocrat · Colorado