The bill updates the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act’s Delaware River Basin provisions by adding Maryland to the list of basin states, changing statutory language from “4-State” to “5-State,” and extending the program authorization through 2032. It also lets the administering Secretary give priority to projects serving small, rural, or disadvantaged communities when awarding grants under the basin conservation grant program.
These changes are narrowly targeted: the text does not alter appropriations levels or create new funding streams. Instead it adjusts eligibility and selection criteria and preserves the program’s statutory authority for nearly a decade — a practical shift that affects which projects can compete and how the Secretary may rank them for funding.
At a Glance
What It Does
It inserts Maryland into the statute’s findings and definitions, replaces “4-State” with “5-State,” adds a discretionary priority for projects that serve small, rural, or disadvantaged communities, and replaces the 2023 sunset with 2032 to extend the program’s authorization.
Who It Affects
State water agencies, watershed organizations, and local governments within the Delaware River Basin — now including Maryland — plus applicants for basin grants, especially those serving small, rural, or disadvantaged communities.
Why It Matters
Expanding the statutory basin and adding a community priority reshapes who can apply and how proposals get scored without changing funding amounts, while the extended sunset keeps the program available for another nine years to support restoration and resilience projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act makes four discrete amendments to the existing Delaware River Basin provisions in the WIIN Act. First, it updates the statutory text to recognize Maryland as a basin state where previously the statute listed only Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania.
That change formally brings Maryland into the universe of entities cited in the law and into the definition of the basin used by the program.
Second, the bill changes the descriptive label in the statute from “4-State” to “5-State” and inserts Maryland into the body of the definitions that describe the basin and basin states. That is a textual but consequential change: it aligns the statute with the geographic scope the sponsors intend and signals that projects within Maryland portion of the watershed are contemplated by the program’s grant authorities.Third, the bill adds a new, permissive prioritization clause for grant selection, authorizing — but not requiring — the Secretary to give preference to projects that serve small, rural, or disadvantaged communities.
The language uses “may give priority,” which preserves agency discretion to design selection criteria, but it explicitly elevates community-focused projects as a permissible axis for prioritization.Finally, the statute’s authorization end date is pushed from 2023 to 2032, effectively reauthorizing the program through that year. The bill does not change how much money the program may receive or specify new appropriations; it simply extends the statutory authorization window during which the underlying grant program may operate and receive funds under other appropriations actions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill inserts “Maryland” into the statute’s findings and the basin definitions, changing the legal list of basin states from four to five.
It edits the statute’s label from “4-State” to “5-State” so the statutory language and headings reflect the addition of Maryland.
Section 3504 is amended to allow the Secretary to give priority to projects that serve small, rural, or disadvantaged communities, using permissive language (“may give priority”).
The program’s statutory sunset in section 3507 is moved from 2023 to 2032, extending the authorization period by nine years.
The bill does not change appropriations levels or alter the grant program’s basic funding mechanism — it modifies eligibility, selection discretion, and the authorization term only.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds Maryland to the statute’s findings
This insertion amends the findings clause to list Maryland alongside the other basin states. Findings do not, by themselves, impose obligations, but they frame congressional intent and can influence how agencies interpret the statute and prioritize outreach, program guidance, and eligibility. Practically, including Maryland in the findings clears an initial legal awkwardness where on-the-ground waters in Maryland could be argued to lack explicit statutory recognition.
Expands the statutory definition of the Delaware River Basin
The bill replaces the phrase “4-State” with “5-State” and inserts Maryland into the paragraphs that define the basin and the basin states. That change alters the universe of places and jurisdictions the statute expressly contemplates, which affects which state agencies and local projects can claim coverage under the WIIN Act’s basin provisions and could require minor administrative updates (maps, applicant guidance, intergovernmental coordination).
Authorizes a discretionary priority for underserved communities
This new subsection gives the Secretary explicit authority to favor projects that serve small, rural, or disadvantaged communities when selecting grants. Because the language is discretionary, agencies retain flexibility to weight this priority against others (cost-benefit, environmental impact, regional balance). Still, the statutory nod makes it easier for agencies to defend selection criteria that privilege equity or community needs when issuing grant guidance and scoring proposals.
Extends the program’s authorization to 2032
Replacing the 2023 termination date with 2032 reauthorizes the basin program for nine additional years. This is a technical reauthorization rather than a funding increase: the change preserves the program’s legal existence so future appropriations can be directed to it, and it provides a predictable horizon for multiyear projects and partnerships that rely on the program’s grant authority.
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
- Maryland state and local governments — will gain explicit statutory recognition, enabling agencies and municipalities in Maryland’s portion of the Delaware watershed to apply or be considered under the basin program and to appear in program guidance and outreach.
- Small, rural, and disadvantaged communities in the basin — the new priority permits the Secretary to favor projects that serve these communities, increasing their chances of receiving grants or technical assistance.
- Local watershed organizations and restoration contractors — the extension to 2032 provides continued market demand for restoration, stormwater, and resilience projects tied to the basin’s grant program.
- Nonprofit and community partners focused on environmental justice — the statutory recognition of disadvantaged-community priority gives them a clearer legal basis to seek funding and to argue for equity-focused scoring criteria.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies administering the program (the statute’s “Secretary”) — will need to update program materials, revise applicant guidance to reflect Maryland’s inclusion and the new priority, and may face increased administrative workload without accompanying appropriations.
- Project applicants outside Maryland or not serving prioritized communities — could face stiffer competition if agencies exercise the new discretionary priority or if the inclusion of Maryland increases the applicant pool.
- State partners in existing basin states — may need to coordinate with Maryland counterparts and revisit interstate project allocation and outreach strategies, which can consume staff time and resources.
- Grant reviewers and regional planners — will have to operationalize what counts as a “disadvantaged” or “small/rural” community and document priority-based decisions, adding procedural overhead.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between broadening statutory inclusion and equity-focused priorities (adding Maryland and elevating projects for underserved communities) and the reality of limited federal funding and administrative resources: expansion and prioritization improve representational fairness but, without added appropriations or detailed implementation rules, may simply redistribute scarce dollars and create new administrative burdens.
The bill is tightly scoped and avoids changes to appropriations or substantive program structure, but that economy creates practical tensions. Adding Maryland expands statutory coverage but does not specify how the boundary changes interact with existing interstate agreements or the Delaware River Basin Commission’s jurisdiction; implementing agencies will have to reconcile federal statutory text with interstate governance and possibly update maps, MOUs, and outreach lists.
The new selection priority is permissive rather than mandatory and leaves key terms undefined. Agencies must decide what counts as “small,” “rural,” or “disadvantaged,” how heavily to weight that priority against environmental or technical merits, and how to document discretionary decisions to withstand audit or political scrutiny.
Finally, extending the sunset without adding funding risks increasing competition: if appropriations do not grow, the same pot of money must cover more recognized jurisdictions and potentially prioritize different types of projects, which could shift funding away from higher-cost, large-scale environmental restoration in favor of smaller community-focused work.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.