Jared Huffman (D-CA)
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to San Francisco Bay restoration, and for other purposes.
A Democratic bill with 8 Democratic cosponsors · See all 8 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 749.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act regarding the San Francisco Bay restoration. It updates the program implementation details found in section 125 of that Act. The legislation expands the types of funding mechanisms and eligible recipients that can receive support for projects, activities, or studies. It establishes a maximum amount of 75 percent of the total cost that can be provided for any project, activity, or study. Non-Federal entities must provide at least 25 percent of the cost from non-Federal sources. Finally, it places limitations on providing Federal funds to non-Federal entities connected to a foreign country of concern.
Yes
- Scored +5
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill provides the Director with various flexible funding mechanisms to support San Francisco Bay restoration projects and studies.
- Scored +4
Would people in cities be better off under this?
The restoration of the San Francisco Bay provides environmental and recreational benefits to residents in the surrounding urban areas.
- Scored +2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill mandates that non-Federal entities must provide at least 25 percent of the cost for projects, reducing the total amount of Federal funding required per project.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
How the text last changed
Reported in House (10/22/2026), compared with Introduced in House. Each change is on the Text tab.
The newer version of the bill changes how funding can be distributed for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program by expanding the available funding mechanisms and adding Federal agencies to the list of eligible recipients. It adjusts the rules for calculating project cost limits and non-Federal share requirements so they apply generally to projects, activities, or studies rather than specifically to non-Federal entities. It also updates the restrictions on providing Federal funds to non-Federal entities that have ties to a foreign country of concern.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Expanded Eligibility and Funding Mechanisms: Under section 1, amending section 125(e)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the bill allows funding to be distributed through interagency agreements, contracts, or other funding mechanisms to a broader group including Federal, State, and local agencies, special districts, public or nonprofit agencies, and other public or private entities. This is positive because it opens up the program to more groups who can work on restoring the San Francisco Bay.
-
Security Limitations on Foreign Entities: Under section 1, amending section 125(e)(3)(B) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the bill prohibits Federal funds from going to any non-Federal entity domiciled in, headquartered in, organized under the laws of, or with a principal place of business in a foreign country of concern, or that has an agreement or partnership with a foreign country of concern. This is positive because it keeps taxpayer money away from foreign adversaries or groups partnered with them.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Cost-Sharing Burden: Under section 1, amending section 125(e)(3)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, non-Federal entities are required to provide not less than 25 percent of the cost of any project, activity, or study from non-Federal sources. This could be viewed as a negative burden because local or non-Federal groups must come up with at least a quarter of the funding themselves to participate.
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 air, water and wildlife? — The bill provides the Director with various flexible funding mechanisms to support San Francisco Bay restoration projects and studies.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in cities be better off under this? — The restoration of the San Francisco Bay provides environmental and recreational benefits to residents in the surrounding urban areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill mandates that non-Federal entities must provide at least 25 percent of the cost for projects, reducing the total amount of Federal funding required per project.
A committee approved it and sent it to the floor
What changed from Introduced in House
The newer version of the bill changes how funding can be distributed for the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program by expanding the available funding mechanisms and adding Federal agencies to the list of eligible recipients. It adjusts the rules for calculating project cost limits and non-Federal share requirements so they apply generally to projects, activities, or studies rather than specifically to non-Federal entities. It also updates the restrictions on providing Federal funds to non-Federal entities that have ties to a foreign country of concern.
Each change
- Section 1 alters how funding is structured by removing the authority for the Director to provide funding specifically through cooperative agreements and grants under subsection (e)(1), and instead inserts provisions allowing interagency agreements, contracts, or other funding mechanisms to be used for Federal, State, and local agencies, special districts, public or nonprofit agencies, and other public or private entities.
- Section 1 removes the specific listing of institutions, organizations, and the Estuary Partnership, as well as the restriction that projects must be identified on the annual priority list compiled under subsection (c).
- Section 1 changes the maximum funding amount rule in subsection (e)(2) to state that amounts provided for any project, activity, or study shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost, replacing language that applied specifically to non-Federal entities receiving grants, cooperative agreements, or other funding mechanisms.
- Section 1 adds subsection (e)(3) regarding assistance to non-Federal entities, updating the non-Federal share requirement so that not less than 25 percent of the cost must come from non-Federal sources, while removing references to specific funding vehicles like grants or cooperative agreements in that rule.
- Section 1 modifies the restriction on providing Federal funds to certain non-Federal entities, applying the limitation to entities domiciled, headquartered, organized, or having their principal place of business in a foreign country of concern, and specifically cites section 10638 of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19237) for the definition.
- Section 1 adjusts the prohibition regarding agreements with a foreign country of concern by removing the word ``relationship'' from the types of forbidden arrangements.
- Section 1 removes the provision regarding Federal interagency agreements that allowed funds provided to Federal entities to be used for activities described in subsection (c).
Written by an AI model from a comparison of this version’s text with the one before it, not by a person. .
- 10/22/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-852.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 749.
- 6/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/3/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/26/2025
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 13.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/24/2025
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 2/15/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 2/14/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
Mark DeSaulnierDemocrat · California
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California
Kevin MullinDemocrat · California
Nancy PelosiDemocrat · California
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California
Eric SwalwellDemocrat · California
Lateefah SimonDemocrat · California