A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 378–32
- In Senate committee
What this bill would do
The American Water Stewardship Act amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to extend several EPA geographic programs through 2031. This includes the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Long Island Sound, Columbia River Basin Restoration, and the National Estuary Program. It expands the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program's funding mechanisms and updates coastal water quality monitoring. The bill also adds Mississippi Sound to the National Estuary Program, though funding for it is restricted for certain years. Finally, it requires a report from the Comptroller General to evaluate the efficiency and ethics of these EPA programs.
Yes· 3 of 29
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Extends multiple water pollution control and restoration programs through 2031.
- Scored +5
Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see?
Mandates a comprehensive report by the Comptroller General on program effectiveness and ethics.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Environmental restoration often improves public health in vulnerable coastal and basin communities.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill reauthorizes and extends spending for several EPA geographic programs through 2031.
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 378 yes · 32 no
03/24/2026 · Roll call 97 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Extended Environmental Restoration: The bill extends authorizations through 2031 for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (Sec. 2), Long Island Sound (Sec. 3), and Columbia River Basin Restoration (Sec. 4), allowing these water cleanup efforts to continue.
-
Expanded Restoration Partnerships: In the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program, funding can now be provided to a broader range of entities, including private entities and various public agencies (Sec. 5).
-
Expanded Estuary Protection: The Mississippi Sound, Mississippi is added to the National Estuary Program (Sec. 6).
-
Improved Water Safety Monitoring: State and local governments can now use grants to identify specific sources of contamination in coastal recreation waters (Sec. 7).
-
Modernized Testing: The EPA must ensure guidance for water quality grants reflects new innovations in testing technologies (Sec. 7).
-
Increased Accountability: The Comptroller General must report on the management of funds, progress toward goals, and the ethics policies of EPA geographic programs to improve effectiveness (Sec. 9).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Funding Restrictions for Mississippi Sound: The EPA is prohibited from using funds for the Mississippi Sound amendment in fiscal year 2026, and cannot do so in 2027 unless appropriations increase by at least $850,000 over 2024 levels (Sec. 6).
-
Cost Burden on Non-Federal Entities: For the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program, non-Federal entities must now provide at least 25 percent of the cost for any project, activity, or study (Sec. 5).
-
Funding Bans for Certain Entities: Federal funds cannot be provided to any non-Federal entity domiciled in, headquartered in, or operating with a foreign country of concern (Sec. 8).
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 households on low incomes be better off under this? — Environmental restoration often improves public health in vulnerable coastal and basin communities. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Water restoration often benefits tribal lands and traditional fishing waters in these basins. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly funds restoration of rural river basins and estuaries. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Improves water quality in affected regions, including the Mississippi Sound. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — Improves water quality in affected regions, including the San Francisco Bay. Would children be better off under this? — Cleaner water and safer recreation areas benefit children's health and environment. Would farmers be better off under this? — Improved water basin health generally supports agricultural sustainability. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves public recreational water quality for general use. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Improves water quality in affected regions, including the Columbia River Basin. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Cleaner water and safer recreation areas benefit middle-aged adults' health and environment. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves public recreational water quality for general use. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Cleaner water and safer recreation areas benefit seniors' health and environment. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Protects urban waterfronts like the San Francisco Bay. Would white Americans be better off under this? — Improves water quality in affected regions across the US. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Cleaner water and safer recreation areas benefit young adults' health and environment. Would business owners be better off under this? — Environmental cleanup can benefit tourism and local businesses, though some must now provide 25% cost-share. Would union members be better off under this? — Restoration projects create demand for skilled labor in environmental remediation.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Extends multiple water pollution control and restoration programs through 2031. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Promotes the restoration and management of coastal and basin water resources. Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides restoration funding to diverse geographic basins including rural areas. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Restoring estuaries and basins can increase natural carbon sequestration.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates a comprehensive report by the Comptroller General on program effectiveness and ethics. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Allows state and local governments to use grants to identify specific sources of contamination. Does this give the federal government more power? — Extends federal oversight and funding for specific geographic environmental programs.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires a Comptroller General report to evaluate the efficiency and ethics of EPA fund management. Is this likely to create jobs? — Environmental restoration projects typically create local jobs in construction and ecology. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improved water quality and ecosystem health can boost local tourism and property values. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill reauthorizes and extends spending for several EPA geographic programs through 2031.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Requires EPA guidance to reflect new innovations in water contamination testing technologies.
- Healthcare
- Does this put more money into medical research? — Encourages the use of innovations in testing technologies for water contamination.
- 3/25/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 3/24/2026
- 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): 378 - 32 (Roll no. 97).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 378 - 32 (Roll no. 97). (text: CR H2662-2663)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2665-2666)
- 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. 6422.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2662-2665)
- Mr. Taylor moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 3/20/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-564.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 485.
- 12/18/2025
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/16/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 12/5/2025
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 12/4/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
Nick LaLotaRepublican · New York
Kristen McDonald RivetDemocrat · Michigan
Hillary ScholtenDemocrat · Michigan