A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Became Public Law No: 119-62.
Became law
Passed both chambers and was signed by the President, or became law without a signature.
Nothing more in Congress: it is law. When it takes effect depends on the dates written into it — some parts start at once, others a year or more later.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 413–0
- Passed Senate voice vote
- To President
- Became Law
The Senate by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no senator's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
The MAPWaters Act of 2025 requires Federal land and water management agencies to standardize and digitize data regarding public outdoor recreational use of Federal waterways. The act mandates the creation of online, publicly available geographic information system data covering waterway restrictions, access and navigation details, and fishing restrictions. It requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to coordinate these efforts and provide annual progress reports to Congress. The law also allows for partnerships with non-Federal agencies and private entities to achieve these goals.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +7
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Requires digitization and public online availability of previously fragmented waterway access and restriction data.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Standardizes and digitizes recreational data across multiple federal land management agencies.
- Scored +3
Would business owners be better off under this?
Beneficial for those operating outdoor tourism, guiding, and rental businesses.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
- The House: a fast-track vote, needing two-thirds to pass The House sets aside its normal procedure to move quickly: no amendments, little debate, and a two-thirds bar instead of a simple majority. It is used for measures expected to be uncontroversial, so a bill that fails here failed despite broad expectations that it would not. Passed 413 yes · 0 no
01/21/2025 · Roll call 19 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Improved Access Information: The bill requires the public digitization of boat ramp locations, portages, and fishing access sites, including their open or closed dates (Section 4(b)(1)).
- Clearer Navigation and Safety: People will have online access to bathymetric information, depth charts, and data on danger areas, exclusion zones, and vessel speed restrictions (Section 4(a)(4) and 4(b)(2)).
- Transparency on Restrictions: The act makes public the specific conditions for waterway entry, such as seasonal closures, motorized propulsion limits, and the permissibility of various watercraft like canoes, rafts, and motorboats (Section 4(a)(1)-(6)).
- Fishing Guidance: Anglers will have access to digitized data regarding the boundaries of fishing restrictions, no-take zones, equipment or bait restrictions, and catch and release requirements (Section 4(c)).
- Public Engagement: The act requires the Secretaries to create a process for the public to submit comments or questions about waterway and access information (Section 4(d)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Limited Scope: The benefits of this data consolidation do not apply to irrigation canals and flowage easements (Section 4(f)).
- Delayed Implementation: Some of the digitized data and publications may not be available for up to 5 years after the act is enacted (Section 4(a), (b), and (c)).
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Beneficial for those operating outdoor tourism, guiding, and rental businesses. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Increases ease of access to high-quality recreational waterway data. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improved access to recreation data benefits middle-aged outdoor enthusiasts. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Increases the ease of planning outdoor recreational trips. Would retired people be better off under this? — Improved access to recreational data supports active retirement lifestyles. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Supports local economies through improved tourism access to rural waterways. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Better navigation and safety data can make outdoor activities safer for seniors. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increased accessibility of outdoor recreation information benefits active young adults. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Publicly available digital maps reduce the cost of finding accessible free recreational areas. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Includes coordination with Tribal natural resource agencies. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Makes it easier for city dwellers to find and access federal waterways.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires digitization and public online availability of previously fragmented waterway access and restriction data. Does this give the federal government more power? — Mandates interagency standardization and reporting among federal secretaries.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Standardizes and digitizes recreational data across multiple federal land management agencies. Does this invest in rural communities? — Digitizing access to federal waterways can increase tourism and recreation in rural areas.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Outdoor guides and recreational rental businesses benefit from clearer and more accessible waterway data. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improved access to recreational waterways can boost local tourism and outdoor recreation economies.
- Public Law (12/27/2025)
The text as it became law
- Enrolled Bill
The final version, on its way to the President
- 12/26/2025
- Signed by President.
- Became Public Law No: 119-62.
- 12/18/2025
- Presented to President.
- 12/17/2025
- Message on Senate action sent to the House.
- 12/16/2025
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged by Unanimous Consent.
- Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote.
- Passed Senate without amendment by Voice Vote. (consideration: CR S8766-8768)
- 1/22/2025
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1/21/2025
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 19). (text: CR H238-239)
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413 - 0 (Roll no. 19). (text: CR H238-239)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H250-251)
- At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 187.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H238-240)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 1/3/2025
- 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.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Debbie DingellDemocrat · Michigan
Russ FulcherRepublican · Idaho
Jimmy PanettaDemocrat · California