Steve Daines (R-MT)
Cooperative Watershed Management Program Reauthorization Act of 2026
A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 656.
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 known as the Cooperative Watershed Management Program Reauthorization Act of 2026. It updates and continues the existing Cooperative Watershed Management Program. The legislation adjusts grant amounts and allows for extensions under specific circumstances. It also includes Indian tribes and groups with ancestral lands within watersheds in the program definitions. Finally, the bill authorizes $20,000,000 to be appropriated for each of the fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the program.
Yes· 3 of 28
- Scored +9
Would Native Americans be better off under this?
Specifically expands program eligibility to include Indian tribes and those with ancestral lands.
- Scored +8
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Directly focuses on improving the management of public watersheds through cooperative grants.
- Scored +7
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Significant benefits for rural land management and disaster recovery from wildfire and drought.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
The bill increases appropriations and grant amounts for watershed management.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
The bill authorizes new spending of $40 million annually from 2027 to 2031.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Grant Funding: Section 2(b)(1)(B)(i) increases the first-phase grant amount from $100,000 to $150,000, which gives recipients more resources to work with.
-
Help for Disasters: Section 2(b)(1)(A)(iii) adds a priority for projects that demonstrate a significant need due to drought, wildfire, or other natural disaster, helping communities hit hardest by these events.
-
Expanded Support Services: Section 2(b)(1)(C) adds activities like grant writing, project management, technical assistance, and post-construction monitoring to what funding can cover, making it easier for groups to actually complete their projects.
-
Better Access and Transparency: Section 2(b)(1)(D) sets up continuous enrollment so applications can be submitted and looked at multiple times a year, and Section 2(b)(2) requires reports to be made available to the public, holding officials accountable.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that create negative consequences or burdens 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 Native Americans be better off under this? — Specifically expands program eligibility to include Indian tribes and those with ancestral lands. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Significant benefits for rural land management and disaster recovery from wildfire and drought. Would farmers be better off under this? — Watershed management is critical for agricultural water security and drought resilience. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Low-income areas are often more vulnerable to natural disasters, which this bill addresses through funding. Would business owners be better off under this? — Engineering and design firms may benefit from increased grant funding for technical assistance. Would Black Americans be better off under this? — General environmental improvement and disaster mitigation. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — General environmental improvement and disaster mitigation. Would children be better off under this? — Environmental protection of watersheds provides long-term benefits for future generations. Would high-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in water resource management. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — General environmental improvement and disaster mitigation. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Environmental protection of watersheds provides long-term benefits. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — General improvement in water resource management. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Environmental protection of watersheds provides long-term benefits. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential for construction and engineering jobs related to watershed projects. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Indirect benefit through better water source management. Would white Americans be better off under this? — General environmental improvement and disaster mitigation. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Environmental protection of watersheds provides long-term benefits.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Directly focuses on improving the management of public watersheds through cooperative grants. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Reauthorizes and expands grants for watershed management, directly improving local environmental health. Does this invest in rural communities? — Watershed programs typically benefit rural areas by managing water resources and disaster mitigation. Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Allows grant eligibility for areas demonstrating significant need due to wildfire, drought, or natural disasters. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Better watershed management often leads to improved ecosystem health and potential carbon sequestration.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires the Secretary to make certain reports available to the public. Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight and discretion of the Secretary in grant extensions.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — Specifically includes Indian tribes and those with ancestral lands in the program definitions.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funding for technical assistance and engineering supports applied environmental science.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — Increased funding for technical assistance, engineering, and project management may create short-term professional opportunities. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Investment in watershed infrastructure can support local economies and resource stability. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — The bill increases appropriations and grant amounts for watershed management. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — The bill authorizes new spending of $40 million annually from 2027 to 2031.
- 9/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Lee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Without written report.
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 656.
- 7/29/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
- 6/3/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/17/2026
- Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. Hearings held.
- 3/10/2026
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 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.
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona