Sam Graves (R-MO)
Water Resources Development Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate.
Passed one chamber, waiting for the other to take it up
Passed one chamber, and the other has not yet sent it to a committee or put it on its calendar.
The other chamber will hand it to a committee, place it on its calendar, or leave it where it is. Nothing has been decided, and a bill can sit here indefinitely.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House 415–9
- Awaiting Senate
What this bill would do
This Act is cited as the Water Resources Development Act of 2026. It provides for improvements to rivers and harbors in the United States and the conservation and development of water and related resources. The legislation establishes new program offices within the Directorate of Civil Works, such as the Office of Inland Navigation Construction Management and the Office of Water Supply, Water Conservation, and Drought Resiliency. It authorizes numerous feasibility studies, project modifications, and environmental infrastructure projects across the country. Additionally, the bill includes provisions regarding contract efficiency, contaminated sediment removal, levee safety, and local financial assistance.
Yes· 3 of 35
- Scored +8
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Directly authorizes land transfers to Tribal entities and prioritizes technical assistance for Tribal communities.
- Scored +8
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Explicitly prioritizes rural communities for technical and financial assistance for water and drought projects.
- Scored +7
Would farmers be better off under this?
Drought resiliency programs, water storage, and irrigation funding directly benefit agricultural productivity.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill explicitly increases spending limits and funding authorizations for dozens of regional water resource programs.
- Scored -3
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes substantial new federal spending on infrastructure and environmental projects without identifying offsets.
- Scored -2
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Increases federal financial commitments for local infrastructure projects without corresponding budget cuts.
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 415 yes · 9 no
09/16/2026 · Roll call 313 · recorded as “On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 101: Establishing the Office on Technical Assistance and Community Outreach and an online electronic portal will help non-Federal interests, particularly rural and Tribal communities, access water resources development programs, services, and financial assistance.
-
Section 109: Modifying continuing authority programs and expanding funding limits for emergency streambank protection and small flood control projects will allow the Secretary to more effectively carry out studies and projects addressing flood risk management and drought resiliency.
-
Section 135: Requiring open communications with each office of a Member of Congress ensures that elected officials can promptly obtain information and technical assistance relating to water resources development projects on behalf of their constituents.
-
Section 401: Authorizing new navigation, flood risk management, ecosystem restoration, and coastal storm risk management projects across various states will directly fund critical infrastructure improvements for local communities.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 103: While this section protects the Secretary from liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 for specific covered activities conducted under an approved joint plan, it does not affect the liability of other persons for activities that are not covered activities or for costs resulting from negligence, which could burden non-federal entities or private parties involved in cleanup operations.
-
Section 301: The deauthorization of inactive projects may terminate federal authorization for water resources development projects that have experienced delays or lack of recent funding, potentially removing planned flood risk management or navigation improvements desired by local communities.
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 Native Americans be better off under this? — Directly authorizes land transfers to Tribal entities and prioritizes technical assistance for Tribal communities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Explicitly prioritizes rural communities for technical and financial assistance for water and drought projects. Would farmers be better off under this? — Drought resiliency programs, water storage, and irrigation funding directly benefit agricultural productivity. Would business owners be better off under this? — Improved harbor and river navigation reduces shipping costs and increases supply chain efficiency. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Prioritizes funding for wastewater and water supply in distressed areas and protects vulnerable populations in flood-prone zones. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Significant investments in urban harbor maintenance and stormwater management in major cities. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Targeted assistance for disadvantaged communities and specific projects like ecosystem restoration near Africatown, Alabama. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Numerous authorized projects in regions with high Hispanic populations, including Texas and Puerto Rico. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Protects property values through improved flood and storm risk management. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects homes and communities from flood disasters, enhancing residential stability. Would union members be better off under this? — Increased federal funding for large-scale infrastructure projects supports unionized construction and engineering labor. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Protection of high-value coastal and riverine properties from storm damage. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in public infrastructure and disaster resiliency enhances property safety. Would retired people be better off under this? — Increased safety from floods and storm surges protects fixed-asset homes and improves municipal services. Would students be better off under this? — Promotes professional development and internship paths from high school through postgraduate studies. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General infrastructure improvements benefit the broader population across multiple states. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General benefits from national infrastructure improvements. Would children be better off under this? — Long-term flood risk reduction and improved water quality provide safer environments for future generations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Creates professional opportunities through construction jobs and formal Federal internships within the Corps of Engineers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Directly authorizes and expedites flood risk management, coastal storm protection, and wildfire contingency strategies. Does this invest in rural communities? — Directly provides significant technical assistance and funding for water projects in rural communities and small towns. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Funds extensive ecosystem restoration, habitat protection, and contaminated sediment remediation. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Authorizes transfers of federal lands to local and Tribal entities and manages water resources on federal lands. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Promotion of nature-based features for flood risk management can sequester carbon.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates online interactive portals and public reporting of project statuses, spending, and mitigation plans. Does this make it easier to do business across state lines? — Enhancing inland waterways and harbors facilitates the movement of goods across state lines. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Conveys federal land and assets to state, local, and tribal governments and requires governor approval for certain water diversions. Does this give the federal government more power? — Establishes new federal offices and mandates within the Corps of Engineers.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Prioritizes technical assistance and funding for disadvantaged and underserved communities. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — Infrastructure investment in disadvantaged communities can lead to indirect poverty reduction through job creation and safety.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Improvements to ports, harbors, and navigation channels facilitate more efficient international shipping and trade.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Authorizes research on shoreline stabilization, dryland stream technologies, and civil works development.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Extensive funding for water and wastewater infrastructure across multiple states stimulates significant construction and engineering employment. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Improvements to navigation, harbors, and municipal infrastructure support regional commerce and economic stability. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Improved contracting efficiency and alternative delivery methods may benefit smaller infrastructure contractors. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill explicitly increases spending limits and funding authorizations for dozens of regional water resource programs. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes substantial new federal spending on infrastructure and environmental projects without identifying offsets. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Increases federal financial commitments for local infrastructure projects without corresponding budget cuts.
- 9/17/2026
- Received in the Senate.
- 9/16/2026
- 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): 415 - 9 (Roll no. 313).
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 415 - 9 (Roll no. 313). (text: CR H5850-5888)
- Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H5959-5960)
- 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. 9497.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5850-5893)
- Mr. Graves moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 9/3/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-795.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 695.
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
- Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 66 - 0.
- 6/30/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 6/29/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 3 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.
- 119-HR-10386: To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 to increase the amount and purposes of funds authorized for the Secretary of the Army to carry out water and wastewater infrastructure projects in Toledo and Oregon, Ohio, and for other purposes.
- 119-HR-10387: To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 to authorize the Secretary of the Army to carry out additional Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem restoration projects not eligible under current policy of the Department of the Army, and for other purposes.
Mike CollinsRepublican · Georgia
Rick LarsenDemocrat · Washington
Frederica WilsonDemocrat · Florida