Latest action: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 656.
Committee has approved the bill (usually with amendments) and sent it back to the full chamber.
The committee voted to send the bill to the floor of the full chamber. The Senate Majority Leader schedules a floor vote.
Next: Passed One Chamber
The other chamber (Senate or House) repeats the committee + floor-vote process
Reauthorizes federal funding for cooperative watershed management programs across multiple states.
The problem
Existing watershed management programs need renewed authorization and funding to continue coordinating water resource protection efforts among states, tribes, and local communities.
The proposal
Extends and reauthorizes the Cooperative Watershed Management Program, allowing federal support for voluntary partnerships that manage water resources and address regional water challenges.
The impact
States, tribes, environmental groups, and water users benefit from continued federal coordination and funding for watershed protection and management activities.
Enables states and tribes to work together on shared water problems. Helps communities coordinate solutions that cross state boundaries where water issues don't follow political lines.
Funds programs that maintain clean water and healthy ecosystems. Helps prevent pollution and protects drinking water sources for millions of Americans.
Encourages groups to work together willingly rather than through mandates. Allows communities to develop solutions that fit their specific local needs.
Balances water use between farms, cities, and natural ecosystems. Helps ensure reliable water supplies for different economic sectors.
Requires taxpayer funding to continue these programs. Adds to the federal budget without reducing other spending.
Bill text does not specify total cost or funding levels. Difficult to assess fiscal impact without official budget details.
No official summary provided makes it hard to evaluate exact changes. Unclear what new provisions or modifications are included.
Federal involvement could mean states have less control over local water decisions. Some communities prefer handling water issues without federal programs.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 7250
To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
HR 10602
Ottawa County Environmental Infrastructure Act
HR 10533
Newton County Water Infrastructure Improvement Act
S 2753
Urban Canal Modernization Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.