Technical corrections only. The later version (v5) incorporates standard public law formatting, including U.S. Code citations, public law annotations, and legislative history. No substantive policy changes were made between v4 and v5.
MAPWaters Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Moore, Blake D. [R-UT-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Dec 26, 2025
Bottom line
The MAPWaters Act of 2025 requires federal agencies to create a comprehensive, standardized, and publicly accessible online database of recreational waterway access and fishing restrictions on federal lands.
What it actually does
This Act mandates the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to standardize, digitize, and publicly publish geospatial data related to public outdoor recreational access on Federal waterways and Federal fishing restrictions. It sets deadlines for developing interagency data standards and for making various types of waterway and fishing restriction data available online, aiming to improve public access to information for recreational planning. The bill also allows for partnerships with non-federal entities and requires the use of existing data to streamline implementation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill will significantly enhance public access to federal waterways by providing clear, centralized, and up-to-date information on recreational opportunities and restrictions. They contend that standardizing data across multiple agencies and making it easily accessible online will reduce confusion, improve safety, and boost outdoor recreation economies by making it easier for the public to plan activities like boating, fishing, and swimming.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns about the administrative burden and cost associated with digitizing and maintaining such a comprehensive database across multiple agencies, especially given the 'to the maximum extent practicable' clause which could lead to inconsistent implementation. Some might also worry about potential privacy implications or the security of geospatial data, though the bill includes a provision against disclosing sensitive resource information.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a reader to understand its provisions within a short timeframe.
Section 3
Interagency Data Standardization
This section requires the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior to work together, along with the Federal Geographic Data Committee, to create common standards for how federal agencies collect and share digital map data. This data will cover public access points for recreation on federal waterways and areas where fishing is restricted. The goal is to ensure all agencies use compatible systems so their data can be easily combined and understood.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that standardized data is crucial for creating a coherent and user-friendly public resource. Without common standards, data from different agencies would be difficult to integrate, undermining the bill's overall goal of consolidated information.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against data standardization efforts, as they are generally seen as good governance, though concerns about implementation costs or bureaucratic hurdles might arise.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension is balancing the need for comprehensive standardization with the existing diverse data systems and practices of multiple federal agencies, which may require significant effort and resources to harmonize.
Section 4
Public Online Geospatial Data for Waterways and Fishing
This section is the core of the bill, requiring the Secretaries to digitize and publish online various geographic information system (GIS) data. This includes detailed information on federal waterway restrictions (e.g., closures, speed limits, permitted watercraft types), access points (boat ramps, fishing sites), and federal fishing restrictions (e.g., no-take zones, equipment rules). The data must be updated regularly, with fishing restrictions updated in real-time.
Section 5
Partnerships and Use of Existing Data
This section allows federal agencies to partner with state, tribal, private sector, and non-profit entities, including technology and geospatial data companies, to help carry out the Act's requirements. It also explicitly permits working with the U.S. Geological Survey and mandates the use of existing data, maps, and resources from other relevant laws to avoid duplication of effort.
This subsection explicitly states that the data consolidation and publication requirements of Section 4 do not apply to irrigation canals and flowage easements.
Section 4(f)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify scope and avoid unintended consequences. Irrigation canals and flowage easements often have complex ownership, access, and liability issues distinct from general public recreational waterways, making their exclusion a practical measure.
Case for: Excluding these specific types of waterways streamlines the implementation of the Act, focusing resources on areas primarily designated for public recreation. It avoids imposing potentially burdensome and inappropriate data publication requirements on infrastructure not primarily managed for public access.
Case against: While practical, some might argue that any waterway used by the public, even if incidentally, should have its access information digitized. However, the primary purpose of these features often makes comprehensive public access data less relevant or feasible.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of data collection and publication, reducing administrative burden for agencies managing these specific types of water infrastructure.
This subsection mandates that any geographic information system data made publicly available under the Act shall not disclose information regarding the nature, location, character, or ownership of historic, paleontological, or archaeological resources, consistent with applicable law.
Section 4(g)
Why it matters:This is a critical protection for sensitive cultural and scientific resources, often included in legislation dealing with public data disclosure. It prevents inadvertent damage, theft, or disturbance of these sites.
Case for: This provision is essential for protecting irreplaceable cultural heritage and scientific sites from vandalism, looting, or accidental damage that could result from publicizing their exact locations. It aligns with existing federal laws protecting such resources.
Case against: No significant case against, as the protection of these resources is widely supported. Some might argue for greater transparency where public access is already permitted and managed, but the intent here is to prevent harm to the resources themselves.
Estimated impact: Ensures the preservation of sensitive cultural and scientific sites on federal lands by preventing their inadvertent disclosure through public data portals.