Robert Scott (D-VA)
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science (WATERS) Act
A Democratic bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 7 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
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 voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Advancement for Training, Education, Restoration, and Science (WATERS) Act. It reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office and updates its leadership and administrative duties. The legislation outlines specific program activities, including integrated coastal observations, a watershed education and training program, and a coastal and living resources management and habitat program. It requires the Director of the Office to ensure projects are peer-reviewed and to consult regularly with the Chesapeake Executive Council. Finally, the bill mandates biennial reports and action plans to be submitted to specific congressional committees and the Secretary of Commerce.
Yes· 3 of 17
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Provides comprehensive support for the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
- Scored +7
Does this put more money into scientific research?
Reauthorizes and expands funding for coastal observations, habitat mapping, and marine research.
- Scored +6
Would students be better off under this?
Provides educational grants, internships, and enhanced classroom materials.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Under Section 2 (adding subsection (c)(5)), the bill authorizes a Chesapeake Bay watershed education and training program that can provide classroom education, meaningful watershed educational experiences, and professional development for teachers. This is positive because it helps students and educators better understand the local ecosystem and builds the capacity of school districts to deliver quality environmental education.
-
Under Section 2 (adding subsection (c)(6)), the bill establishes a Chesapeake Bay Coastal Living Resources Management and Habitat Program to support the restoration and protection of priority habitats and living resources like oysters, blue crabs, and striped bass. This is a positive outcome for individuals and local communities because it aids in native oyster research, shellfish aquaculture, and habitat resilience.
-
Under Section 2 (adding subsection (c)(4)), the Director is directed to organize scientific information into products that are useful to policymakers, resource managers, scientists, and the public. This is considered beneficial as it ensures everyday people and leaders have clear, accessible environmental data regarding water quality and living marine resources.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based strictly on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline negative consequences, burdens, or direct 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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would students be better off under this? — Provides educational grants, internships, and enhanced classroom materials. Would children be better off under this? — Improves environmental education and classroom experiences for elementary and secondary students. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Creates education and career pathway internships for students. Would business owners be better off under this? — Provides support for aquaculture business owners. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Supports coastal and rural industries like aquaculture and habitat restoration. Would farmers be better off under this? — Benefits those engaged in aquaculture, which is a form of aquatic farming.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Provides comprehensive support for the restoration and protection of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Enhances the management and restoration of priority coastal habitats. Does this invest in rural communities? — Supports aquaculture and coastal community resilience in rural watershed areas. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Restoration of salt marshes and submerged aquatic vegetation helps with carbon sequestration.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Reauthorizes and expands funding for coastal observations, habitat mapping, and marine research. Does this put more money into public schools? — Provides grants for professional development and classroom education in school districts.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Directly supports fish and shellfish aquaculture businesses. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Supports the aquaculture industry and coastal resource management. Is this likely to create jobs? — Provides internships and supports aquaculture industries which may lead to job growth.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires biennial reports and transparent peer-review mechanisms for funded projects. Does this give the federal government more power? — Reauthorizes and clarifies the role of a federal NOAA office in watershed management.
- 9/15/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- 9/14/2026
- 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 voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5584-5585)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6893.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5584-5586)
- Mr. Westerman moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 8/20/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 119-763.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 664.
- 7/15/2026
- Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
- 4/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2026
- Subcommittee Hearings Held
- 3/19/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife and Fisheries.
- 2/24/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 12/18/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
3 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.
Sarah ElfrethDemocrat · Maryland
Glenn IveyDemocrat · Maryland
Jennifer KiggansRepublican · Virginia
Jennifer McClellanDemocrat · Virginia
April McClain DelaneyDemocrat · Maryland
Eleanor NortonDemocrat · District of Columbia
Robert WittmanRepublican · Virginia