Technical corrections only. The two versions of H.R. 4553 are substantively identical, with v3 reflecting the bill's status as "Placed on Calendar Senate" after passing the House. No substantive policy changes were made between v2 and v3.
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2025
Bottom line
This bill funds critical federal energy and water infrastructure and research for FY2026, while also embedding significant policy changes and restrictions on federal agency operations.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for energy and water development and related agencies for fiscal year 2026. It allocates billions to the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, and various Department of Energy programs, including nuclear security, science, and energy efficiency. The bill also includes numerous general provisions that impose policy directives, restrict certain activities, and amend existing laws, covering topics from firearm possession on federal lands to prohibitions on certain DEI initiatives and transactions with entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill provides essential funding for national security, infrastructure maintenance, scientific research, and energy independence, ensuring the continued operation of vital federal functions. They emphasize responsible allocation of taxpayer dollars and strategic investments in areas like clean energy, water management, and defense. The inclusion of policy riders is often framed as necessary to address pressing issues or ensure accountability in federal spending.
Opponents contend
Critics might contend that the bill includes extraneous policy riders unrelated to appropriations, potentially hindering its passage or forcing votes on controversial issues. Concerns could be raised about specific funding allocations, potential impacts on environmental regulations, or restrictions on agency activities that some view as overreach. Some might also argue that certain provisions are designed to advance a specific political agenda rather than serve broad public interest.
The bill is over 20 pages long, contains complex appropriations language, and includes numerous general provisions and amendments to existing law. Given its omnibus nature and the potential for rapid legislative action, the time available for thorough public and legislative review may be insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of its full implications.
Title I
Appropriations for Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works
This title allocates over $9 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers' civil functions, including investigations ($200M), construction ($2.555B), Mississippi River and Tributaries flood control ($490M), and operation and maintenance ($6.14B) of existing projects. It also funds regulatory programs, flood control emergencies, and administrative expenses. A significant portion of operation and maintenance funds are derived from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this funding is vital for national infrastructure, economic competitiveness, disaster preparedness, and environmental stewardship, ensuring safe navigation and protecting communities from natural disasters.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that some projects are wasteful or environmentally damaging, or that the allocation process is overly political. Concerns could also be raised about the efficiency of project delivery.
Tradeoffs
Balancing economic development (navigation, ports) with environmental protection (aquatic ecosystem restoration) and flood control needs, often with competing demands for limited resources.
Sec. 108, Title I
Right to Possess Firearms on Corps of Engineers Lands
This section prohibits the Secretary of the Army from enforcing any regulation that prevents individuals from possessing firearms at Corps of Engineers water resources development projects, provided the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law and complies with state law. This effectively allows firearm possession on these federal lands in accordance with state regulations.
Title II
Appropriations for Bureau of Reclamation and Central Utah Project
This title appropriates funds for the Department of the Interior, primarily for the Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project. It allocates $23 million for the Central Utah Project Completion Act and over $1.7 billion for "Water and Related Resources," covering management, development, and restoration of water resources, operation and maintenance of facilities, and fulfilling responsibilities to Native Americans. It also funds the Central Valley Project Restoration Fund and California Bay-Delta Restoration.
Sec. 203, Title II
Extensions and Funding Increases for Water Infrastructure Programs
This section amends several existing laws related to water infrastructure. It extends the authorization for certain provisions of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN Act) from 2021 to 2027 and other sections to 2034 and 2026. It also increases the authorized funding cap for the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act from $50 million to $177.5 million, and for the Water Desalination Act of 1996 from $30 million to $106.5 million.
Title III
Appropriations for Department of Energy Programs
This title provides over $40 billion for various Department of Energy programs. Key allocations include: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.83B), Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response ($200M), Electricity ($225M), Nuclear Energy ($1.795B), Fossil Energy ($687.5M), Strategic Petroleum Reserve ($294.6M), Science ($8.4B), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Weapons Activities ($20.66B), Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation ($1.99B), and Defense Environmental Cleanup ($6.52B). It also funds Power Marketing Administrations and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Sec. 308, Title III
Prohibition on SPR Sales to Chinese Communist Party-Controlled Entities or Export to China
This section prohibits the use of funds to draw down and sell petroleum products from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to any entity under the ownership, control, or influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), or on condition that such products will not be exported to the People's Republic of China.
Sec. 313, Title III
Repurposing IIJA Funds for Nuclear Energy Projects
This section mandates the transfer of over $4.9 billion in unobligated balances from various programs funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) to the "Department of Energy--Energy Programs--Nuclear Energy" account. These funds are specifically redirected to support competitive awards for Generation 3+ small modular reactor deployment projects, advanced reactor demonstration projects, and risk reduction for future demonstrations.
Title IV
Appropriations for Various Independent Agencies
This title provides funding for several independent agencies, including the Appalachian Regional Commission ($162.5M), Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ($45M), Delta Regional Authority ($25.2M), Denali Commission ($13.8M), Northern Border Regional Commission ($33.3M), Southeast Crescent Regional Commission ($16.2M), Southwest Border Regional Commission ($4M), Great Lakes Authority ($4M), and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) ($952.7M, with $804.5M offset by fees).
Sec. 505, Title V
Ban on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) Funding
This section prohibits the use of any funds made available by this Act for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, training, programs, offices, officers, policies, or other executive agency functions. It also bans funds for any program, project, or activity that promotes or advances Critical Race Theory (CRT) or any concept associated with it.
Sec. 506, Title V
Non-Discrimination Based on Religious Beliefs about Marriage
This section prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against any person, wholly or partially, on the basis that such person speaks or acts in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is, or should be recognized as, a union of one man and one woman. Discriminatory actions include adverse tax treatment, denial of grants/contracts, or denial of federal benefits.
Sec. 507, Title V
Prohibition on COVID-19 Mask or Vaccine Mandates
This section prohibits the use of any funds made available by this Act or any other Act to implement, administer, or enforce any COVID-19 mask or vaccine mandates.
Sec. 510, Title V
Prohibition on Federal Classification or Censorship of U.S. Person Communications
This section prohibits the use of funds to classify or facilitate the classification of any communications by a United States person as mis-, dis-, or mal-information. It also bans funds for partnering with or funding nonprofit or other organizations that pressure or recommend private companies to censor lawful and constitutionally protected speech of United States persons, including content on social media platforms.
Establishes detailed, specific reprogramming limits for various Army Corps of Engineers accounts (Investigations, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Mississippi River and Tributaries, Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program). These limits specify dollar amounts and percentages for allowed augmentations or reductions without prior Congressional approval.
Sec. 101(a)(6)-(10), Title I
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for appropriations bills, providing necessary flexibility for agencies to manage funds while maintaining congressional oversight. The detail is inherent to financial control.
Case for: Proponents argue these detailed limits provide agencies with essential flexibility to respond to unforeseen circumstances or adjust project scopes within reasonable bounds, without requiring constant congressional approval for minor changes. This streamlines operations.
Case against: Critics might argue that even these detailed limits can allow for significant shifts in funding priorities without explicit public debate, potentially obscuring changes from the original congressional intent.
Estimated impact: Dictates the operational flexibility for billions of dollars in Corps of Engineers funding across numerous projects nationwide.
Amends Section 1602(g)(1) of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h) by striking '$50,000,000' and inserting '$177,500,000'.
Sec. 203(b), Title II
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating statutory authorizations. While consequential, such amendments are often grouped together in general provisions for efficiency.
Case for: Proponents argue that increasing the authorization cap is necessary to reflect rising costs, expand the scope of eligible projects, and meet growing demand for water recycling and groundwater replenishment initiatives, which are critical for water security in arid regions.
Case against: Critics might question the necessity of such a large increase or whether the programs are effectively utilizing existing funds, potentially raising concerns about the overall cost to taxpayers.
Estimated impact: Increases the potential federal investment in water recycling and groundwater projects by $127.5 million over the previous authorization.
Grants the Secretary of Energy authority to waive any requirement or restriction in this section that applies to the use of funds made available for the Department of Energy if compliance would pose a substantial risk to human health, the environment, welfare, or national security, with a 3-day notification to Congress.
Sec. 301(g), Title III
Why it matters:This is a standard, albeit powerful, executive flexibility clause often included in appropriations to allow for emergency responses. Its placement is typical for such administrative powers.
Case for: Proponents argue this waiver is essential for the Secretary to respond rapidly to unforeseen emergencies or critical national security threats without being hampered by bureaucratic delays or strict funding rules. The notification requirement ensures congressional awareness.
Case against: Critics might express concern that such broad waiver authority, even with notification, grants significant discretion to the executive branch, potentially allowing it to bypass congressional intent on funding restrictions in non-emergency situations.
Estimated impact: Provides the Secretary of Energy with significant, albeit conditional, flexibility to reallocate or use funds outside of normal restrictions in critical situations, potentially involving billions of dollars.
None of the funds made available in this title may be used to finalize, administer, implement, or enforce the final rule entitled "Clean Energy for New Federal Buildings and Major Renovations of Federal Buildings" published by the Department of Energy in the Federal Register on May 1, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 35384).
Sec. 312, Title III
Why it matters:This is a policy rider designed to block a specific administrative action. Placing it in an appropriations bill is a tactical maneuver to ensure its passage, as standalone legislation might face greater opposition or be subject to a presidential veto.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision prevents what they see as an overreaching or burdensome federal regulation that could impose unnecessary costs or restrictions on federal building projects, asserting that Congress should dictate such policy.
Case against: Opponents contend that this provision undermines efforts to promote energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions in federal infrastructure, potentially hindering climate goals and setting a negative precedent for federal building standards.
Estimated impact: Blocks a federal rule intended to promote clean energy in federal buildings, potentially impacting future energy consumption and emissions from government facilities.
None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be made available to finalize any rule or regulation that meets the definition of section 804(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code (a 'major rule').
Sec. 509, Title V
Why it matters:This is a significant policy rider aimed at limiting the regulatory power of the executive branch. Placing it in an omnibus appropriations bill is a tactical maneuver to ensure its passage, as standalone legislation restricting rulemaking would likely be highly contentious.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision is necessary to curb perceived regulatory overreach by federal agencies, asserting that major policy changes should originate from Congress, not unelected bureaucrats. It aims to reduce the burden of new regulations on businesses and the economy.
Case against: Opponents contend that this provision severely hampers the ability of federal agencies to address pressing issues through necessary regulations, potentially leading to regulatory paralysis and undermining the government's capacity to protect public health, safety, and the environment.
Estimated impact: Potentially prevents the finalization of numerous significant federal regulations across all agencies funded by this Act, impacting a wide range of sectors and policies.
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to close the Toto Creek, Bolding Mill, Duckett Mill, Old Federal, Van Pugh South Campground, Sawnee, or Bald Ridge Creek campgrounds located at Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia.
Sec. 513, Title V
Why it matters:This is a classic example of a localized policy rider, likely inserted to address specific constituent concerns or to protect local recreational assets from potential federal closure decisions. Its inclusion in an omnibus bill ensures its passage without individual debate.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision protects valuable local recreational resources and ensures continued public access to popular campgrounds, supporting local tourism and quality of life for residents near Lake Sidney Lanier.
Case against: Critics might argue that such specific directives interfere with federal land management decisions, potentially preventing cost-saving measures or necessary operational adjustments based on local conditions or broader agency priorities.
Estimated impact: Ensures the continued operation of seven specific campgrounds at Lake Sidney Lanier, Georgia, preventing potential closures or changes in management by the responsible federal agency.