To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to San Francisco Bay restoration, and for other purposes.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1382
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Environmental Protection
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-26: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 13.
- Last Updated
- 2025-06-03T08:05:34Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This bill, H.R. 1382, aims to update the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act). It expands funding options for restoration projects and adds safeguards to prevent federal money from going to entities linked to certain foreign countries, promoting environmental cleanup while protecting national interests.
Key Provisions
- Funding Flexibility: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director can provide money through grants, cooperative agreements (formal partnerships between agencies), contracts, or other methods to support projects listed on an annual priority list for bay restoration.
- Eligible Recipients: Funding goes to federal, state, and local government agencies; special districts; public or nonprofit organizations; and other public or private groups, including the San Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership (a collaborative group focused on bay health).
- Cost-Sharing Requirements: For non-federal recipients, the federal government covers up to 75% of costs, with at least 25% coming from non-federal sources (like state funds or private donations).
- Restrictions on Foreign Ties: No funding for non-federal entities that:
- Are based in, organized under the laws of, or primarily operate in a "foreign country of concern" (a term defined in federal law to include nations like China that pose security risks).
- Have any agreements, partnerships, or relationships with such countries.
- Federal Agency Support: Money can also fund interagency agreements (deals between U.S. government departments) for restoration activities.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Program Name Update: Removes "grant" from the section heading, signaling a shift from grant-only funding to broader mechanisms.
- Expanded Implementation: Replaces the previous subsection (e) with new rules that allow diverse funding tools and introduce mandatory non-federal cost-sharing, which wasn't specified before.
- New Security Restrictions: Adds prohibitions on funding entities with foreign country of concern connections, a provision not present in the original law, to align with broader U.S. policies on national security in federal spending.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Streamlines EPA and other federal coordination for bay projects, potentially speeding up restoration efforts, but adds administrative checks to screen recipients for foreign links, which could increase oversight costs.
- On Citizens: Improves water quality and habitat in the San Francisco Bay area, benefiting over 7 million residents through cleaner ecosystems, reduced pollution, and enhanced recreation (e.g., fishing, boating). Local communities may see job creation in environmental work.
- On International Relations: The foreign country restrictions could strain ties with adversarial nations by blocking their entities from U.S. environmental projects, reinforcing U.S. efforts to limit foreign influence in domestic infrastructure.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Agencies: EPA (leads implementation); other departments involved in interagency agreements.
- State and Local Governments: California agencies and Bay Area districts handling restoration.
- Nonprofits and Partnerships: Groups like the San Francisco Bay Estuary Partnership, which coordinates multi-party efforts.
- Private Entities: Businesses and organizations eligible for funding, but only if they meet the non-federal share and foreign restriction criteria.
- Excluded Parties: Companies or groups with ties to foreign countries of concern, potentially limiting international collaboration on environmental issues.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Strengthens compliance with existing Clean Water Act goals while incorporating national security laws (e.g., referencing 42 U.S.C. 19237). The cost-sharing and eligibility rules ensure accountability in federal spending, but could face challenges if deemed overly restrictive on free association.
- Constitutional: Aligns with Congress's spending power under Article I, allowing conditions on federal funds without directly infringing on First Amendment rights, though restrictions on foreign-linked entities might invite scrutiny for potential overreach.
- Political: Bipartisan sponsorship (Democrats Huffman and Panetta, Republican Mullin) highlights cross-party support for regional environmental protection amid national security concerns, potentially setting a model for restricting foreign involvement in other U.S. infrastructure programs.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (8)
Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-14], Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10], Rep. Simon, Lateefah [D-CA-12], Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-11]
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-26: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 40 - 13.
- 2025-02-26: Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- 2025-02-26: Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged
- 2025-02-15: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
- 2025-02-14: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-14: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to San Francisco Bay restoration, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-02-14 — PDF (3 pages)