This bill amends subsection (c) of 54 U.S.C. §200306 to change two numeric limits that govern a statutory allocation for recreational public access. It replaces the current "3 percent" figure with "10 percent" and raises the associated dollar cap from $15,000,000 to $50,000,000.
The change increases the statutory share and the maximum dollar ceiling available under that subsection, which can expand the pool of money that may be used for public-access projects on federal land. The bill does not itself appropriate funds or add new programmatic language beyond those numeric substitutions, so any additional spending still requires subsequent appropriations and program-level implementation by the administering agency.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends 54 U.S.C. §200306(c) by replacing the phrase "3 percent" with "10 percent" and by changing the dollar cap in the same subsection from "$15,000,000" to "$50,000,000." Those are the only textual changes.
Who It Affects
Agencies that administer the statutory recreational-access program in Title 54, plus the states, tribes, local governments, and nonprofits that apply for or receive grants or transfers under that authority. Outdoor recreation businesses and communities that rely on federal land access also stand to be affected indirectly.
Why It Matters
Raising both the percentage and cap materially increases the statute’s maximum allocation for access projects, allowing the program to support larger or more numerous projects if Congress appropriates the funds and the agency updates implementation guidance. The change shifts the program’s statutory budgeting parameters and can alter trade-offs within constrained federal land-management budgets.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes a narrow but substantive statutory change: it edits subsection (c) of a Title 54 provision to increase two numeric limits that control how much may be directed to recreational public-access purposes. In practice, that statutory subsection has functioned as a rule that limits the share and absolute amount of some pool of funds available for access projects.
By enlarging both figures, the amendment raises the program’s legal ceiling.
That enlargement does not by itself create new spending authority. Federal statutes often set percentages and caps as rules for allocating existing or future appropriations; actual outlays still depend on subsequent appropriations actions and agency implementation.
Practically, program managers will need to decide whether to revise grant ceilings, application guidance, prioritization criteria, and multi-year planning to reflect the higher statutory limit.For grant recipients and project planners, the higher ceiling changes project feasibility calculations. States, tribes, local governments, and nonprofit sponsors can design larger-scale access projects—or a larger number of projects—if agencies allocate funds up to the new statutory maximum.
Conversely, absent appropriations or implementing guidance that uses the new ceiling, the change will be a potential authority rather than an immediate increase in money available on the ground.Implementation will raise operational questions: agency staffing and oversight must scale to manage larger awards, contracting and environmental review chains may lengthen for bigger projects, and interagency coordination (for example where multiple land-managing agencies overlap) may become more complex. The statute as amended contains no transitional or grandfathering language, so the change will apply to the subsection immediately upon enactment unless the enacting language specifies otherwise.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends subsection (c) of 54 U.S.C. §200306—no other sections are altered.
It replaces the statutory percentage "3 percent" with "10 percent," tripling the listed share.
It increases the subsection’s dollar ceiling from $15,000,000 to $50,000,000.
The text makes numeric substitutions only; it does not include an appropriation or specify an effective date or transitional rules.
Sponsor: Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ); introduced as H.R. 105 on January 3, 2025 in the 119th Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the measure as the "Increasing Public Access to Recreation Act." This is purely a caption; it carries no policy or operative effect but is the label under which the amendment will be cited.
Increase statutory percentage in 54 U.S.C. §200306(c)
Subsection (c) of 54 U.S.C. §200306 currently refers to a "3 percent" allocation; the bill substitutes "10 percent." That change raises the fractional share available under the statutory mechanism. Administratively, a larger percentage can change allocation formulas and the relative amounts available to programs tied to that subsection, but actual allocations still depend on appropriations and agency budget decisions.
Raise statutory dollar cap in 54 U.S.C. §200306(c)
The amendment replaces an existing dollar limit of $15,000,000 with $50,000,000 in the same subsection. Practically, this raises the statutory ceiling on how much may be allocated under that provision in any relevant period permitted by the statute. The higher cap permits larger single awards or a greater aggregate award amount, subject to appropriation and program rules.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State, local, and tribal recreation agencies: The higher statutory ceiling lets these entities apply for larger grants or a greater number of projects under the subsection’s authority, improving feasibility for multi-jurisdictional access improvements.
- Outdoor recreation-dependent communities and local economies: Larger or more numerous access projects can attract more visitors and business activity, supporting lodging, retail, guiding, and other local services.
- Nonprofit conservation and recreation organizations: These groups can plan bigger capital campaigns or partnerships that leverage a larger statutory allocation to finance trail work, access infrastructure, and community outreach.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal land-management programs and agencies: Administering larger awards increases workload, oversight and compliance obligations; agencies may need additional staffing or shift resources to manage bigger projects.
- Other programs competing for the same funding pool: If administrators use the higher ceiling by reallocating existing appropriations, other priorities (conservation, maintenance, restoration) could face reduced funding.
- Congressional appropriators and taxpayers: Realizing the statute’s higher ceiling requires appropriations decisions; if Congress funds the increased ceiling, that will exert pressure on discretionary budgets and taxpayer dollars.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between enabling larger, faster improvements to public access on federal land and the fiscal and management realities of doing so: the bill expands legal capacity to fund access projects, but without guaranteed appropriations or added administrative resources, that capacity may either go unused or, if used, divert scarce funds and management attention from other conservation and maintenance priorities.
The bill is a classic example of raising statutory authority without addressing appropriations. The two numeric substitutions expand what the statute permits, but they do not create an appropriation or specify a revenue source.
That means the practical effect depends entirely on future appropriations and agency choices; advocates may overstate immediate impacts if they treat the change as automatic funding. Conversely, appropriators could leave the new ceiling unused, in which case the change has symbolic but not programmatic effect.
Operationally, larger statutory ceilings come with trade-offs that the bill does not address. Bigger awards increase environmental review complexity, procurement and contracting oversight, and long-term maintenance obligations — costs that land managers and grantees must bear.
The statute offers no new administrative funding or reporting requirements, so agencies will need to decide whether to reallocate internal resources, seek new appropriations for administration, or limit award sizes despite the higher ceiling. Finally, the amendment contains no transitional provisions, so program rules, guidance, and multi-year project pipelines will require deliberate updating to avoid legal and practical confusion.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.