MAPWaters Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Sen. Barrasso, John [R-WY]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 31, 2025
Bottom line
This bill directs federal agencies to create a consolidated, standardized, and publicly accessible online database of recreational information for federal waterways.
What it actually does
This bill mandates federal land and water management agencies to standardize, digitize, and publicly publish geospatial data concerning public outdoor recreational use of federal waterways. This includes information on waterway restrictions, access points, navigation details, and federal fishing regulations, aiming to create a comprehensive online resource for the public.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill will significantly enhance transparency and public access to information about federal waterways, making it easier for recreational users like boaters and anglers to plan activities, ensure compliance with regulations, and avoid unintentional violations. They contend it will promote outdoor recreation and associated economic activity by reducing barriers to information.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that digitizing and maintaining such extensive geospatial data for all federal waterways could impose a substantial administrative and financial burden on federal agencies, potentially diverting resources from other critical management activities. Concerns about the feasibility of ensuring real-time data accuracy and completeness across vast and dynamic environments could also be raised.
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 (through the Forest Service) and Interior (for agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management) to jointly develop and adopt interagency standards. These standards will ensure compatibility and interoperability among federal databases for collecting and disseminating geospatial data related to public outdoor recreational access on federal waterways and federal fishing restrictions. This must be completed within 30 months of the bill's enactment, in coordination with the Federal Geographic Data Committee.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that standardized data is crucial for creating a comprehensive and interoperable public resource, preventing discrepancies and improving data utility for both agencies and the public by ensuring consistency and ease of integration.
Critics contend
Some might argue that developing new interagency standards could be a complex and time-consuming process, potentially delaying the ultimate goal of public data availability due to bureaucratic hurdles and the need for consensus among multiple agencies.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the need for robust, consistent data standards to ensure data quality and usability, and the administrative effort and time required for interagency agreement and implementation across diverse federal entities.
Section 4
Public Online Data Publication
This section mandates the Secretaries to digitize and make publicly available online, within 5 years, geographic information system (GIS) data. This data must cover federal waterway restrictions (e.g., closures, motorized propulsion limits, anchoring rules), access and navigation information (e.g., location of boat ramps, portages, depth charts), and federal fishing restrictions (e.g., no-take zones, equipment limits, catch-and-release rules). The bill also requires a public comment process for this information and specifies update frequencies: at least twice yearly for access/navigation data and in real-time for fishing restrictions.
Section 5
Partnerships and Data Integration
This section authorizes the Secretaries to coordinate and partner with various non-Federal entities, including State and Tribal natural resource agencies, private sector technology and geospatial data companies, and nonprofit partners, to help carry out the Act. It also allows collaboration with the U.S. Geological Survey for data collection and publication. The bill mandates that all data developed and distributed must comply with applicable Federal, State, and Tribal laws and include a notice to that effect. Furthermore, agencies are encouraged to use or incorporate existing applicable data, maps, and resources to the extent practicable.
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 likely standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of the bill and avoid imposing unintended regulatory burdens on specific types of water infrastructure that are not primarily managed for general public recreational access.
Case for: Supporters would argue this exclusion is practical and necessary, as these areas often have specific operational purposes and safety concerns that make them unsuitable or unsafe for general public recreational access. Including them would add unnecessary complexity and cost to the data collection effort without significant public benefit.
Case against: Critics might argue that excluding certain waterways, even those with specific uses, could create gaps in comprehensive public information, potentially leading to confusion or missed opportunities for limited recreational use where it might otherwise be safe and permissible under specific conditions.
Estimated impact: Limits the scope of federal waterways data collection, potentially reducing administrative burden on agencies and avoiding data publication for areas not primarily intended for general public recreation.
This subsection mandates that any geographic information system data made publicly available under this section 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 standard legislative practice aimed at protecting sensitive cultural and natural resources from potential damage, looting, or disturbance that could result from public disclosure of their precise locations.
Case for: Proponents emphasize that this protection is vital for preserving irreplaceable cultural heritage and scientific resources, aligning with existing federal laws and ethical practices for resource management and preventing harm to sensitive sites.
Case against: No significant opposition is typically raised against such protective measures, as the value of preserving these resources is widely recognized. Some might argue for greater transparency where public access does not pose a threat, but this is generally a non-controversial exclusion.
Estimated impact: Ensures the protection of sensitive cultural and natural resources by preventing their precise locations from being publicly mapped, while still allowing for recreational data publication for other areas.