A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
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, known as the "Making Access To Cleanup Happen Act of 2025" or the "MATCH Act of 2025," seeks to amend the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978. It focuses on the preagreement costs related to emergency watershed protection measures. The legislation requires the Secretary to identify specific protection measures and develop a request procedure for sponsors. Sponsors include State or local governments and Indian Tribes. If an agreement is reached, the Secretary will consider these preagreement costs as part of the sponsor's contribution to the project.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +5
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?
The legislation improves the administrative framework for emergency watershed protection and disaster recovery costs.
- Scored +5
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Rural communities, local governments, and tribal areas facing natural disasters benefit directly from streamlined recovery rules.
- Scored +4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill facilitates faster implementation of emergency watershed protection measures following natural disasters.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this give the federal government more power?
The Secretary retains ultimate discretion on whether to enter into agreements despite sponsor preagreement spending.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Cost Recognition for Sponsors: Under Section 2, paragraph (3), if the Secretary and a sponsor enter into an agreement, the Secretary shall consider any applicable preagreement costs incurred for undertaking emergency watershed protection measures as meeting part of the sponsor's contribution toward the project cost. This provides a way for the costs of early action to be credited toward the overall project.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Assumption of Financial Risk: According to Section 2, paragraph (4), a sponsor that undertakes emergency watershed protection measures before entering into an agreement with the Secretary shall assume the risk of incurring any cost of undertaking those measures.
-
No Guarantee of Agreement: Section 2, paragraph (5) states that nothing in the subsection requires the Secretary to enter into an agreement with a sponsor, which means the initial costs incurred by a sponsor might not result in a formal agreement.
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 improve help for people hit by a disaster? — The legislation improves the administrative framework for emergency watershed protection and disaster recovery costs. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill facilitates faster implementation of emergency watershed protection measures following natural disasters. Does this invest in rural communities? — State governments, local governments, and Indian Tribes benefit from clearer preagreement cost rules for disaster recovery. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — It coordinates preagreement actions for watershed management between local sponsors and the federal government. Does this repair or build roads and bridges? — Emergency watershed and drainage protection helps safeguard local infrastructure and agricultural lands.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Rural communities, local governments, and tribal areas facing natural disasters benefit directly from streamlined recovery rules. Would farmers be better off under this? — Agricultural producers benefit from faster emergency watershed protection and flood mitigation measures. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — The bill explicitly includes Indian Tribes in the definition of sponsors eligible for preagreement cost provisions. Would business owners be better off under this? — Local contractors can benefit from accelerated watershed restoration projects.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Local contractors and businesses involved in watershed restoration may benefit from earlier project execution. Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill encourages earlier watershed recovery work which can support local employment in cleanup and construction. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Streamlining watershed protection measures helps local economies recover faster from natural disasters.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — It empowers state and local governments and Indian Tribes to initiate emergency watershed measures sooner. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — It requires the Secretary to clearly identify eligible preagreement measures and establish formal request procedures. Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Establishes structured procedures and deadlines for sponsors to request additional emergency measures. Does this give the federal government more power? — The Secretary retains ultimate discretion on whether to enter into agreements despite sponsor preagreement spending.
- 4/30/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/2/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Conservation, Research, and Biotechnology.
- 10/17/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
John GaramendiDemocrat · California
Celeste MaloyRepublican · Utah
Hillary ScholtenDemocrat · Michigan