Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Northwest Wetlands Voluntary Incentives Program Act
A Democratic bill with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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 creates the Pacific Northwest Migratory Bird Conservation pilot program. It allows the Secretary of the Interior to give competitive grants and technical help to various groups to fix and maintain bird habitats. The program focuses on the Columbia River Basin and the Oregon and Washington Coastal Zone. It targets habitats for shorebirds, waterfowl, and other birds that depend on wetlands. Funding is authorized at $10 million per year from 2026 through 2030.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +8
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Specifically targets the restoration and maintenance of critical migratory bird habitats.
- Scored +6
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Provides resources for the scientific management and restoration of public and private wetlands.
- Scored +4
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Explicitly includes Tribal governments and organizations as eligible entities for grants.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Increases federal spending by authorizing a new grant program.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Authorizes new government spending of $10 million per year.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Support for Diverse Groups: The bill allows a wide range of "eligible entities" to receive grants, including Tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, conservation districts, and private landowners (Section 2(2)).
-
Environmental Restoration: The program funds water infrastructure and vegetative projects to enhance and restore habitats for migratory birds (Section 3(d)).
-
Increased Public Access: The Secretary can prioritize grants for projects in areas where public access to recreational land is currently limited (Section 3(f)(1)(C)).
-
Financial Assistance for Conservation: Eligible entities can receive funding for planning, permitting, and installing restoration projects (Section 3(g)(3)(A)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Funding Limitations: Grant recipients cannot use the funds for the regular operation and maintenance of the projects (Section 3(g)(3)(B)).
-
Financial Burden for Applicants: The Secretary may prioritize projects that provide a non-Federal share of at least 25 percent (Section 3(f)(4)).
-
Strict Funding Deadlines: Any grant funds not used within 4 years of receiving the grant must be returned to the Secretary (Section 3(g)(2)(B)).
-
Limited Use of Funds: Only a small portion of grant funds (up to 10 percent) can be used for determining ecosystem service benefits or for voluntary conservation easements (Section 3(g)(1)).
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? — Explicitly includes Tribal governments and organizations as eligible entities for grants. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Brings federal funding and technical assistance directly to rural landowners and local governments. Would farmers be better off under this? — Allows agricultural land to be used for habitat restoration projects with federal funding. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Provides incentives for conservation easements on private lands. Would business owners be better off under this? — Potential for local business growth related to restoration and outdoor recreation. Would children be better off under this? — Improves environmental health and public access to nature for future generations. Would gun owners be better off under this? — Restoring waterfowl habitat generally benefits hunting opportunities. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Provides funding options for private landowners engaged in conservation. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides incentives for conservation easements on private lands. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Increases public access to recreational land in limited-access areas. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Provides funding for land managers and private landowners. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves overall regional environmental health. Would retired people be better off under this? — Improves access to natural recreational spaces. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves public access to recreational lands. Would students be better off under this? — Provides real-world environmental projects for study and research. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Provides incentives for conservation easements on private lands. Would union members be better off under this? — Creates potential for specialized construction and restoration work. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Increases regional public access to recreational natural areas. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Increases recreational opportunities and environmental quality.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Specifically targets the restoration and maintenance of critical migratory bird habitats. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Provides resources for the scientific management and restoration of public and private wetlands. Does this invest in rural communities? — Provides funding for water infrastructure and land management in rural basin and coastal areas. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Wetland restoration often enhances carbon sequestration.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires annual reports to Congress on the implementation and funding of projects. Does this give the federal government more power? — Expands the role of the Secretary of the Interior through a new grant program.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Allows funds for determining ecosystem service benefits of restoration projects.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Habitat restoration projects typically create local jobs in construction and environmental management. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides federal investment into regional infrastructure and environmental restoration. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Increases federal spending by authorizing a new grant program. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Authorizes new government spending of $10 million per year.
- 5/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
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.
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho