Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Prevention Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Walberg, Tim [R-MI-5]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
This bill aims to strengthen federal efforts to prevent, control, and eradicate aquatic invasive species through enhanced coordination, new grant funding, and mandated inspection and monitoring programs, with significant implications for water users and environmental management.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes and significantly expands the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, establishing new grant programs for research, development, and rapid response to aquatic invasive species. It mandates the development of comprehensive plans for watercraft inspections and decontaminations across federal and non-federal waterways, and an interbasin/intrabasin monitoring program. The bill also updates the composition and responsibilities of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and regional panels to enhance coordination and stakeholder engagement.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill is crucial for protecting native ecosystems, biodiversity, and vital economic activities like fishing, recreation, and water infrastructure from the devastating impacts of aquatic invasive species. They emphasize the necessity of proactive measures, robust rapid response capabilities, and improved coordination among federal, state, tribal, and local entities to combat this growing environmental and economic threat effectively.
Opponents contend
Opponents might raise concerns about the potential for increased regulatory burdens on recreational boaters and commercial watercraft operators due to new inspection and decontamination requirements. They could also question the cost-effectiveness of certain programs or express apprehension about potential federal overreach into state and local jurisdictions, particularly regarding access to non-federal lands and waters.
The bill is moderately detailed, requiring careful reading to understand the amendments to existing law and the scope of new programs. An informed reader would need adequate time to fully grasp its implications.
Section 2(a)
Expanded Definitions for Aquatic Nuisance Species Act
This section formally renames 'aquatic nuisance species' to also be known as 'aquatic invasive species' throughout the Act, aligning terminology with current scientific usage. It explicitly defines 'rapid response activities' as timely actions to eradicate or control invasive species, ensure conservation outcomes, maintain ecosystem functions, and mitigate economic harms. It also formally defines 'regional panels' as those convened under section 1203.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that clarifying terminology and explicitly defining 'rapid response activities' provides a stronger legal framework for urgent action and better aligns the Act with current scientific and management practices, improving overall effectiveness.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against definitional updates that clarify existing law and align with common usage, as they are generally seen as beneficial for consistency.
Tradeoffs
None apparent, primarily a clarification and modernization of language.
Section 2(b), adding new Section 1105 to NANPCA
Aquatic Invasive Species Control and Eradication Grant Program
This provision establishes a competitive, peer-reviewed, merit-based grant program within one year of enactment. The program will fund research, development, demonstration, and verification of environmentally sound and cost-effective technologies, methods, and practices to control and eradicate aquatic invasive species. It aims to support federal, state, tribal, regional, and local officials, as well as nongovernmental organizations, in their efforts.
Section 2(c)(1), amending Section 1201 of NANPCA
Enhanced Task Force Membership and Coordination
This section expands the membership of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force by adding a representative from each of the six regional panels. It also broadens the Task Force's consultation requirements to include nongovernmental organizations involved in monitoring, prevention, or control of aquatic nuisance species, particularly those affecting outdoor recreation. Furthermore, the Task Force is mandated to develop a plan to enhance coordination with the National Invasive Species Council.
Section 2(c)(2)(A)(iii), adding new Subsection 1202(j) to NANPCA
Study on Expediting Rapid Response Activities
This provision mandates the Task Force, in consultation with relevant federal Secretaries, to conduct a comprehensive study within two years on federal laws and regulations that either govern or impede rapid response activities for aquatic invasive species. The study must identify existing categorical exclusions, waivers, and other regulatory exemptions, and recommend changes to expedite rapid response, including the creation of new such mechanisms to streamline actions.
Section 2(c)(2)(A)(iii), adding new Subsection 1202(k) to NANPCA
National Plan for Watercraft Inspections and Decontaminations
This provision requires the Task Force to develop a plan within two years for federal agencies, in coordination with states, to conduct inspections and decontaminations of watercraft. These activities would occur at stations located at boat launches and access points on federal and non-federal waterways, as well as roadside locations along federal highways. The plan must include an interagency certification system, recommendations for a penalty structure, analysis of siting effectiveness, incentives for manufacturers to design AIS-resistant watercraft, and measures to minimize disruption to recreational access.
Section 2(c)(2)(A)(iii), adding new Subsection 1202(l) to NANPCA
Enhanced Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring Program
This provision establishes an interbasin and intrabasin monitoring program within two years, to be coordinated by the Task Force with regional panels and states. The program will track aquatic invasive species movement through key waterways like the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal and the Champlain Canal, assess the efficacy of dispersal barriers, and identify new sites for barrier demonstration projects. The Task Force is also required to issue biennial reports on the program's findings and future plans.
Section 2(c)(4), adding new Section 1210 to NANPCA
Rapid Response Activities Grant Program
This provision establishes a competitive, merit-based grant program to fund eligible entities, including states, tribes, universities, and nongovernmental organizations. Grants will support activities such as eradicating or containing isolated aquatic invasive species populations, determining their spatial extent, assessing response measures, developing containment strategies, and monitoring population and response effectiveness. Funding is contingent on confirmed identification of the aquatic invasive species.
Section 2(d), amending Section 1301 of NANPCA
Reauthorization and Increased Funding for AIS Programs
This section authorizes appropriations for various programs under the Act for fiscal years 2026 through 2031. It includes $10 million annually for the general Aquatic Nuisance Species Program, $3 million annually for the Interbasin and Intrabasin Monitoring Program, $5 million annually for the Rapid Response Activities Grant Program, $1.5 million annually for regional panels, $20 million annually for State Management Programs grants, and $10 million annually for the Technology Development Demonstration and Verification Grant Program. The total annual authorization is $49.5 million.
This provision states that Chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (commonly known as the 'Federal Advisory Committee Act' or FACA), shall not apply to actions of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force.
Section 2(c)(1)(D), adding new Subsection 1201(i) to NANPCA
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice for certain interagency bodies or task forces, intended to allow for more flexible and rapid internal coordination without the procedural requirements (e.g., public meetings, detailed record-keeping) typically imposed on external advisory committees. It is not necessarily evasive, but it does reduce transparency.
Case for: Proponents would argue that exempting the Task Force from FACA allows it to operate more efficiently, make quicker decisions, and coordinate effectively without being bogged down by administrative burdens designed for external advisory bodies, which is crucial for rapid response to invasive species.
Case against: Critics might argue that FACA exemptions reduce transparency and public accountability for federal bodies, potentially limiting public input and oversight on decisions related to invasive species management, which could lead to less public trust.
Estimated impact: Moderate, affecting the procedural transparency and operational speed of the Task Force, but not its core mission or funding.
This provision amends an existing grant program, the Coastal Aquatic Invasive Species Mitigation Grant Program, to explicitly allow grant awards to be used 'to encourage the installation, use, or maintenance of ballast water management systems that conform to or exceed the standards of, and regulations imposed under, international maritime agreements.'
Section 3, amending Section 903(f)(2)(C)(i) of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018
Why it matters:This placement is likely due to the need to amend a specific, separate piece of legislation (the Coast Guard Authorization Act) that governs ballast water management, rather than being an attempt to hide the provision. It's a targeted amendment to an existing authority.
Case for: Proponents would argue that ballast water is a major vector for aquatic invasive species, and incentivizing advanced management systems is a critical, proactive step to prevent new introductions, aligning U.S. efforts with international standards and protecting coastal ecosystems.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against incentivizing better environmental technology, though some shipping companies might prefer direct mandates over incentives if they view the latter as insufficient or inequitable for industry-wide adoption.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as ballast water is a primary pathway for marine invasive species. The actual impact depends on the uptake of the incentive and the scale of the existing grant program.