A Republican bill with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 640.
Cleared committee, waiting for its first floor vote
A committee approved it and it is on the calendar of the chamber it started in.
This is further than most bills get, and still no promise of a vote: the calendar is a queue, and the majority leadership decides what is called. A bill can sit here until the Congress ends.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- On Calendar
What this bill would do
This bill is called the Urban Canal Modernization Act. It amends the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. The legislation authorizes certain extraordinary operation and maintenance work for urban canals of concern. It defines an urban canal of concern as a canal reach where failure would put an estimated population of more than 100 individuals at risk. The Secretary of the Interior or the transferred works operating entity may carry out this necessary work. For non-emergency work on these canals, 25 percent of the total costs will be provided by the Secretary on a nonreimbursable basis, while the remaining amounts must be repaid by the operating entity.
Yes· 3 of 15
- Scored +7
Would people in cities be better off under this?
Directly targets the safety and modernization of canals specifically in urban areas.
- Scored +5
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Provides an authorization mechanism for the Secretary of the Interior to maintain critical canal infrastructure on public lands.
- Scored +4
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Urban canal failures often disproportionately affect higher-density, lower-income housing areas.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Authorizes new federal spending for the maintenance of urban canals of concern.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill provides nonreimbursable federal funding for 35% of project costs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Improved Safety for Populated Areas: Under section 2(a)(4), the bill defines an urban canal of concern where a failure would risk more than 100 individuals. This focuses attention and safety efforts on populated areas.
-
Federal Cost Assistance: Under section 2(b)(3)(A), the Secretary will provide 25 percent of the total costs for extraordinary operation and maintenance work on urban canals of concern on a nonreimbursable basis. This means the federal government chips in funds that do not have to be paid back.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Repayment Burdens: Under section 2(b)(3)(B), the remaining amounts for extraordinary operation and maintenance work on urban canals of concern must be advanced by the Secretary and repaid by the transferred works operating entity. This could create a financial burden for the operating entities responsible for the repayment.
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 people in cities be better off under this? — Directly targets the safety and modernization of canals specifically in urban areas. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Urban canal failures often disproportionately affect higher-density, lower-income housing areas. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — Urban canal infrastructure is often located in historically marginalized communities. Would children be better off under this? — Reduces risk of canal failure in urban areas where children may live or play. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Improves general public safety for those living near urban canals. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Urban canal infrastructure is often located in historically marginalized communities. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Improves safety for residents in at-risk urban canal zones. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Improves general public safety for those living near urban canals. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Improves safety for residents in at-risk urban canal zones. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Improves safety for residents in at-risk urban canal zones. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential for increased unionized construction work for canal modernization.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Provides an authorization mechanism for the Secretary of the Interior to maintain critical canal infrastructure on public lands.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to determine and perform work on canal reaches.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Infrastructure modernization generally supports local economic stability. Is this likely to create jobs? — Modernization and maintenance work on urban canals may create short-term construction and engineering jobs. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Authorizes new federal spending for the maintenance of urban canals of concern. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill provides nonreimbursable federal funding for 35% of project costs.
- 9/23/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee with amendments. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 640.
- 6/10/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
- 3/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
- 9/10/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
Mike CrapoRepublican · Idaho
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon