Bay restoration funding rules

Summary#

H.R. 1382 would amend section 125 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which concerns San Francisco Bay restoration. The bill does not give a separate short title in the supplied text. Its stated subject is Bay restoration, but it does not guarantee a particular restoration result.

  • The program’s Director may fund projects, activities, and studies on the annual priority list through grants, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, contracts, or other funding methods.
  • Eligible recipients listed include federal, state, and local agencies; special districts; public and nonprofit agencies; the Estuary Partnership; and other public or private entities, institutions, and organizations.
  • For non-federal recipients, federal funding through grants, cooperative agreements, or other funding methods may cover no more than 75% of a project’s cost. At least 25% must come from non-federal sources.
  • A non-federal entity is barred from receiving funding if it meets any listed connection to a “foreign country of concern,” including having any agreement, partnership, or relationship with one.
  • Federal agencies may use funds provided through interagency agreements for activities described elsewhere in section 125. That subsection is not included in the supplied material.

What it means for you#

  • Potential project recipients: The Director could use several funding methods for projects on the annual priority list. The bill does not require the Director to fund any project.
  • Non-federal recipients: They would need to provide at least 25% of project costs from non-federal sources. An entity with one of the listed foreign-country connections would be ineligible.
  • Federal agencies: They could use interagency-agreement funds for activities described in section 125.
  • The public: The supplied changes do not directly alter pollution rules, create a new public service, or guarantee that Bay restoration work will happen.
  • The bill is not law. Its passage is uncertain.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill permits funding but does not provide an appropriation or estimate how much would be spent.
  • Non-federal recipients would have to cover at least 25% of eligible project costs.
  • Staffing, administration, and other costs are not estimated.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current text of section 125, so the existing funding rules and exactly what this bill changes cannot be verified.
  • The bill does not identify the Director or explain how funding decisions would be made, when they would be made, or whether there would be reviews or appeals.
  • It does not define “agreement,” “partnership,” or “relationship” for the foreign-country exclusion. The definition of “foreign country of concern” is referenced in another law, whose text was not supplied.
  • The annual priority list and the activities described elsewhere in section 125 are not included, so their scope is unclear.
  • The text does not explain how the 25% non-federal share would be documented or whether exceptions are possible.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it gives the Director several ways to fund listed projects, including agreements and contracts as well as grants.
  • The listed range of potential recipients includes public agencies, nonprofits, and private entities, which could allow different organizations to carry out eligible work.
  • Requiring a non-federal share could bring non-federal resources into projects, though the bill does not say whether this would happen.

Case against#

  • One concern is that the Director may, but does not have to, provide funding. The bill sets no funding amount or guarantee that any project will receive support.
  • The 25% non-federal share could make it harder for an eligible recipient to carry out a project if it cannot obtain that share.
  • The foreign-country exclusion covers any agreement, partnership, or relationship, without defining those terms or stating an exception or review process.
  • The bill does not explain how funding choices would be overseen or how the new funding rules would interact with existing rules.