Analyses / Public Summary / 119 · HR 7376 Public Summary

119-HR-7376 Journalist Public Summary

119 · HR 7376 Local Water Protection Act

Plain-language overview of H.R. 7376 (Local Water Protection Act). Explains that it would extend Clean Water Act Section 319 nonpoint‑source pollution grants through FY2027–FY2031, why that matters for local water‑quality projects, who generally supports or questions it, and where it sits now after a Feb 11, 2026 committee voice vote.

Published
12 Feb 2026
Updated
12 Feb 2026
Tags
public-summary · US-Congress · environment
Unvetted
01 · Section

Headline Summary

A bipartisan bill to keep federal help flowing to local projects that reduce polluted runoff—extending Clean Water Act grants for fiscal years 2027–2031.

02 · Section

What It Does

H.R. 7376, the “Local Water Protection Act,” renews (reauthorizes) the Clean Water Act’s Section 319 program that funds state, Tribal, and local efforts to tackle nonpoint‑source pollution—think runoff from farms, streets, and construction sites. The bill doesn’t create a new program or set new rules; it simply extends the program’s authorization window to cover fiscal years 2027 through 2031 so grants can continue.

03 · Section

Who’s For It

  • Lead sponsors: Rep. Hillary Scholten (D‑MI) and Rep. Brian Mast (R‑FL) introduced the bill on February 4, 2026, signaling bipartisan intent.
  • House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee advanced it by voice vote on February 11, 2026, a sign the measure is relatively non‑controversial.
  • Typical supporters include states, Tribes, watershed groups, and conservation districts that rely on Section 319 grants to prevent algae blooms, protect drinking‑water sources, and restore streams.
  • Backers say renewing the authorization provides multi‑year certainty for local projects and helps communities address runoff without imposing one‑size‑fits‑all federal mandates.
04 · Section

Who’s Against It

  • Some fiscal conservatives may question continuing federal grant programs without additional reforms or tighter performance requirements.
  • Some agriculture or development voices could worry that grant‑driven state or local plans might increase compliance costs or restrict land use in practice, even if the bill itself doesn’t add new mandates.
  • Skeptics may prefer directing funds to other water‑quality tools or to core infrastructure like wastewater treatment plants instead of voluntary runoff projects.
05 · Section

What’s Next

As of February 12, 2026, the bill has been ordered reported by the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee after a February 11 markup. Next, House leaders can schedule a floor vote; if it passes the House, it moves to the Senate. The President would consider it only after both chambers approve the same text.

Discussion