A substantive revision. V2 replaces the entire text of v1, notably removing the explicit definition of "Indian tribe" and paragraph redesignations from the definitions section. It also modifies first-phase grant conditions, expands the scope of eligible technical assistance activities, adds a funding availability caveat to continuous enrollment, and halves the authorized appropriations from $40,000,000 to $20,000,000 annually.
Cooperative Watershed Management Program Reauthorization Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Daines, Steve [R-MT]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill extends and modifies a federal program supporting local watershed management, increasing grant flexibility and eligibility while reducing overall authorized funding.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the Cooperative Watershed Management Program for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. It increases the maximum first-phase grant amount from $100,000 to $150,000, allows for grant continuation for up to two additional years, expands eligible technical assistance activities, and adds "significant need due to drought, wildfire, or other natural disaster" as a criterion for grant prioritization. Crucially, it also reduces the authorized appropriation from $40,000,000 to $20,000,000 annually.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that reauthorizing and enhancing the Cooperative Watershed Management Program is crucial for empowering local communities, including Indian tribes, to address critical water resource challenges like drought and wildfire. The increased grant amounts and extended continuation options provide more flexibility and stability for effective, long-term watershed projects, while expanding eligible technical assistance ensures comprehensive support for project success.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that while the program is beneficial, the reduction in authorized appropriations from $40 million to $20 million per year could significantly limit the program's reach and impact, especially given the expanded eligibility criteria and increased individual grant amounts. This could lead to fewer projects being funded overall, potentially undermining the program's goals despite the increased flexibility for individual grants.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick review by an informed reader.
Section 2(a) amending Section 6001(6)(B)(v) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Inclusion of Ancestral Lands in Watershed Group Definition
This provision expands the definition of "interested persons" who can be part of a watershed group to explicitly include Indian tribes that have ancestral lands within the watershed. This ensures that tribes with historical ties to the land are recognized as key stakeholders in watershed management efforts, formalizing their role in decision-making processes.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this is a vital step towards respecting tribal sovereignty and traditional ecological knowledge, ensuring that those with deep historical connections to the land have a formal seat at the table in managing critical water resources.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against this provision, as it is seen as an equitable and inclusive amendment to existing definitions.
Tradeoffs
This provision aims to balance historical recognition with practical watershed management, ensuring that all relevant stakeholders are included without creating undue administrative burdens.
Section 2(b)(1)(A)(iii) amending Section 6002(c)(1)(B) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Prioritization for Drought, Wildfire, or Natural Disaster Need
This amendment adds a new criterion for prioritizing grant applications: demonstrating significant need due to drought, wildfire, or other natural disaster. This means that watershed groups in areas severely impacted by these events will have a better chance of receiving funding, directing resources to urgent environmental crises.
Section 2(b)(1)(B) amending Section 6002(c)(2) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Enhanced First-Phase Grants and Multi-Year Continuation
The bill increases the maximum first-phase grant amount from $100,000 to $150,000. Crucially, it also introduces a new provision allowing the Secretary to continue a first-phase grant for up to two additional years, each at an amount not exceeding $150,000, based on satisfactory performance. This provides more sustained funding for initial project development and implementation.
Section 2(b)(1)(C) amending Section 6002(c)(3)(B)(ii) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Broader Scope for Technical Assistance Funding
The bill expands the types of technical assistance activities eligible for funding. Previously, it focused on water quality and quantity. The amended text explicitly includes grant writing, project management, technical assistance like design, environmental studies or surveys, engineering, and post-construction monitoring to assess project outcomes, providing comprehensive support.
Section 2(b)(3) amending Section 6002(g).
Reauthorization and Reduced Funding Level
The bill reauthorizes the Cooperative Watershed Management Program for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. However, it significantly reduces the authorized appropriation level from $40,000,000 to $20,000,000 for each of those fiscal years, effectively halving the program's potential funding.
Expands the definition of "interested persons" for watershed groups to include Indian tribes with ancestral lands within the watershed.
Section 2(a) amending Section 6001(6)(B)(v) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for updating definitions within existing law, but the specific inclusion of ancestral lands is a substantively important policy choice.
Case for: Supporters argue it ensures proper recognition and inclusion of tribal interests in resource management, leveraging traditional ecological knowledge for more effective outcomes.
Case against: No significant opposition, generally seen as a positive step for inclusivity and tribal sovereignty.
Estimated impact: Enhances tribal engagement and formal participation in watershed management efforts across the country.
Reduces the authorized appropriation for the Cooperative Watershed Management Program from $40,000,000 to $20,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2027-2031.
Section 2(b)(3) amending Section 6002(g).
Why it matters:This is a direct amendment to a funding authorization, which is a standard legislative mechanism. However, the *reduction* itself is a substantive policy choice that could be less prominent than program expansions.
Case for: Proponents of the reduction might argue for fiscal restraint, that other programs have higher priority, or that the program can achieve its goals more efficiently with less funding through targeted approaches.
Case against: Opponents would argue that this significantly curtails the program's ability to address widespread and growing watershed challenges, especially given the concurrent expansion of eligible activities and increased individual grant sizes.
Estimated impact: A reduction of $20 million per year, totaling $100 million over five years, significantly limits the program's capacity to fund projects.