2 versions

SubstantiveWhat changed in REPORTED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Feb 14, 2025)

A substantive refinement of funding provisions. v2 expands the 75% federal funding limit to apply to all projects, not just those carried out by non-Federal entities, and clarifies the non-Federal share requirement. It also updates a statutory reference and slightly narrows the scope of prohibited relationships with foreign countries of concern for non-Federal recipients.

H.R. 1382119th CongressIntroduced Feb 14, 2025

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to San Francisco Bay restoration, and for other purposes.

Reported To HouseEnvironmental ProtectionSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
Committees: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 22, 2026

Bottom line

This bill broadens the reach and flexibility of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program while implementing national security-focused restrictions on foreign involvement in funded projects and formalizing cost-sharing.

What it actually does

This bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to expand the types of entities eligible for funding under the San Francisco Bay Restoration Program and broadens the available funding mechanisms. It formalizes cost-sharing requirements, mandating a 75% federal maximum and a 25% non-federal minimum for projects involving non-federal entities. Crucially, it introduces new restrictions, prohibiting federal funds from going to non-federal entities with ties to "foreign countries of concern" as defined in existing law.

Proponents argue

Supporters argue that expanding eligible recipients and funding mechanisms will enhance the program's flexibility and effectiveness, allowing a wider range of partners to contribute to vital San Francisco Bay restoration efforts. They also contend that the new foreign country of concern provisions are a necessary national security measure to prevent sensitive federal funds from inadvertently supporting adversarial foreign interests.

Opponents contend

Critics might argue that while the expansion of eligible entities could be beneficial, the new restrictions related to "foreign countries of concern" could introduce unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles or inadvertently exclude beneficial partnerships, potentially slowing down restoration projects. Some might also question the necessity of such broad national security language in a regional environmental restoration bill.

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick and informed evaluation.

Section 1(2)(B) of H.R. 1382, amending Section 125(e)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Broadening Program Participants and Funding Tools

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision expands the types of organizations that can receive federal funds for San Francisco Bay restoration projects. Previously limited to state and local agencies and public/nonprofit agencies, it now includes federal agencies and "other public or private entities." It also allows for more diverse funding methods beyond just "grants," such as interagency agreements and contracts, increasing flexibility in how projects are managed and funded.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupFederal, State, and local agencies, special districts, public or nonprofit agencies, and other public or private entities involved in San Francisco Bay restoration.ImpactIncreased access to federal funding and more flexible funding mechanisms.MechanismDirect amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.ScaleBroadened participation across the entire San Francisco Bay Restoration Program.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this expansion will allow for greater collaboration and leverage a wider array of expertise and resources, leading to more effective and efficient restoration outcomes for the San Francisco Bay.

Critics contend

No specific opposition is typically raised against expanding eligible recipients for environmental programs, though some might express concerns about oversight if "other public or private entities" are not clearly defined or vetted.

Tradeoffs

The tradeoff is between increased flexibility and potential concerns about ensuring accountability and proper use of funds by a broader range of recipients.

Section 1(2)(C) of H.R. 1382, inserting new paragraphs (2) and (3)(A) into Section 125(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share Mandate

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision establishes clear cost-sharing rules for projects. It states that federal funds cannot exceed 75% of the total cost of any project, activity, or study. For non-federal entities receiving funds, at least 25% of the project cost must come from non-federal sources, ensuring local investment and shared responsibility in restoration efforts.

Section 1(2)(C) of H.R. 1382, inserting new paragraph (3)(B) into Section 125(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Prohibition on Funding Entities Tied to Foreign Countries of Concern

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This critical provision prohibits federal funds from being provided to any non-federal entity that is based in, headquartered in, organized under the laws of, or has its principal place of business in a "foreign country of concern." It also bans funding for entities that have any agreement or partnership with such a country. The definition of "foreign country of concern" is referenced from existing federal law (42 U.S.C. 19237).

FOUND

The bill prohibits funding to non-federal entities with ties to a "foreign country of concern," but the specific definition of this term is not provided within the bill text itself. Instead, it refers to an external statute.

Section 1(2)(C), new paragraph (3)(B)(i) of Section 125(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, referencing "section 10638 of the Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act (42 U.S.C. 19237)".

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions. However, it makes the bill less self-contained for a casual reader.

Case for: Referencing existing law ensures consistency across federal programs and avoids creating conflicting definitions. It streamlines the legislative text.

Case against: For a reader, it creates an extra step to fully understand the bill's implications, particularly for entities that might be affected by the "foreign country of concern" designation.

Estimated impact: The impact is significant for any non-federal entity with international ties, as their eligibility hinges on an external definition that can change.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.

SubstantiveWhat changed in REPORTED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Feb 14, 2025)

See full diff

H.R. 1382119th CongressIntroduced Feb 14, 2025

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act with respect to San Francisco Bay restoration, and for other purposes.

Reported To HouseEnvironmental ProtectionSubstantive

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2]
Committees: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
Last action: Oct 22, 2026

Bottom line

What it actually does

Proponents argue

Opponents contend

The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick and informed evaluation.

Section 1(2)(B) of H.R. 1382, amending Section 125(e)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Broadening Program Participants and Funding Tools

prominently featuredstraightforward

GroupImpactMechanismScale

Supporters argue

Critics contend

Tradeoffs

The tradeoff is between increased flexibility and potential concerns about ensuring accountability and proper use of funds by a broader range of recipients.

Section 1(2)(C) of H.R. 1382, inserting new paragraphs (2) and (3)(A) into Section 125(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Federal and Non-Federal Cost Share Mandate

prominently featuredstraightforward

Section 1(2)(C) of H.R. 1382, inserting new paragraph (3)(B) into Section 125(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Prohibition on Funding Entities Tied to Foreign Countries of Concern

prominently featuredmoderately complex

FOUND

Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid redundancy and ensure consistency with existing legal definitions. However, it makes the bill less self-contained for a casual reader.

Case for: Referencing existing law ensures consistency across federal programs and avoids creating conflicting definitions. It streamlines the legislative text.

Case against: For a reader, it creates an extra step to fully understand the bill's implications, particularly for entities that might be affected by the "foreign country of concern" designation.

Estimated impact: The impact is significant for any non-federal entity with international ties, as their eligibility hinges on an external definition that can change.