This bill amends the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act and related boating-safety provisions to modernize funding mechanics and grant priorities and to change excise-tax treatment for a specific class of fishing equipment. It updates statutory deadlines, adjusts how money is allocated to interstate fisheries commissions, explicitly adds alternative marine-fuel infrastructure to the boating infrastructure program, and creates a lower excise-tax rate for portable electronically-aerated bait containers.
For practitioners: the changes re-shape which projects can compete for boating infrastructure funds, alter guaranteed minimums for interstate fisheries commissions, and change tax liabilities for manufacturers and importers of the affected bait containers — all of which affect budgeting, grant planning, and compliance for agencies, marinas, and recreational-fishing suppliers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends 16 U.S.C. 777c and related sections to (1) push existing statutory dates forward, (2) revise the allocation language and minimums for interstate fisheries commission payments, (3) add construction/renovation/maintenance of alternative marine-fuel facilities as eligible under the boating infrastructure program and define key fuel terms, and (4) add a 3% excise-tax rate for portable electronically-aerated bait containers under IRC section 4161(a).
Who It Affects
State fish and wildlife agencies, interstate fisheries commissions, coastal and inland marinas seeking Boating Infrastructure Grant (BIG) funds, suppliers and manufacturers of bait aeration devices, and federal program managers administering Dingell-Johnson and boating infrastructure grants.
Why It Matters
The bill broadens project eligibility to include alternative-fuel infrastructure (potentially unlocking federal dollars for fuel transitions), reshapes guaranteed minimum funding for interstate bodies, and reduces a product-specific excise tax — each move that can shift grant competition, local investment decisions, and excise-revenue flows that support restoration programs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Section 2 edits the statutory timetable in the Dingell-Johnson Act by replacing the year references currently set to expire in 2026 with 2031. That is a straight date-extension: the existing distribution framework and appropriation-division language remain in place but apply through the later year, keeping current allocation mechanics alive for an additional five years.
Section 3 targets the statute that provides a small, dedicated allocation for interstate fisheries commissions. The bill eliminates the prior phrasing that capped transfers at a fixed $1,200,000 and changes the per-appropriation minimum: rather than a fixed $200,000, the statute would now require the greater of a tiny percentage (0.0375 percent) of the appropriation or $200,000.
Practically, that changes the floor and makes the commission payment scale with the overall appropriation rather than being limited by an absolute cap.Section 4 rewrites boating infrastructure priorities and definitions. It adds explicit eligibility for construction, renovation, or maintenance of alternative fuel facilities and for transporting alternative marine fuels to marine fuel facilities serving transient, nontrailerable recreational vessels.
The provision also inserts statutory definitions for 'alternative fuel station facility', 'alternative marine fuels', and 'drop-in fuels', and it ties fuel descriptions to ASTM specifications and specific renewable-content thresholds (for example, a renewable gasoline blend floor and renewable diesel up to 100 percent, and biodiesel blends up to a set percentage) so that grant applicants and administrators have a statutory baseline for what counts as an eligible fuel project.Section 5 amends the Internal Revenue Code by adding a 3 percent excise-tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers (inserting that rate into IRC section 4161(a) as a new paragraph). The change applies to articles sold by manufacturers, producers, or importers after enactment, shifting tax treatment for this narrowly defined product class and thereby changing the tax receipts supporting the sport fishing restoration fund to the extent those receipts are material.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 2 extends the existing Dingell-Johnson appropriation-division schedule by replacing statutory year references of '2026' with '2031', continuing the current allocation framework for five more years.
Section 3 removes the prior '$1,200,000' cap language for interstate fisheries commission transfers and changes the minimum payment to the greater of 0.0375 percent of the appropriation or $200,000, tying the floor to overall funding levels.
Section 4 makes alternative marine-fuel infrastructure an eligible activity for Boating Infrastructure grants, explicitly allowing construction, renovation, maintenance, or transport of alternative fuels for transient nontrailerable recreational vessels.
Section 4 also adds statutory fuel definitions: 'alternative fuel station facility', 'alternative marine fuels', and 'drop-in fuels', and references ASTM D4814 and ASTM D975 specifications and set renewable-content thresholds for eligibility.
Section 5 amends IRC section 4161(a) to apply a 3% excise-tax rate to portable, electronically-aerated bait containers for products sold after enactment, replacing the prior 10% standard for these items.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the bill's caption: the Sport Fish Restoration, Recreational Boating Safety, and Wildlife Restoration Act of 2025. This is a stylistic header with no programmatic effect but signals the bill's scope across restoration, boating safety, and wildlife-related funding and regulatory changes.
Extend statutory dates for appropriation divisions
Mechanically replaces references to '2026' with '2031' in the division-of-annual-appropriations language. For administrators this is an easy change to implement: appropriation tables, internal distribution schedules, and multi-year budget forecasts should now reflect availability through FY2031. The provision does not alter percentages or distribution formulas — it merely preserves them for a longer statutory term, reducing the need for near-term reauthorization planning.
Change interstate fisheries commission payment floor and remove cap language
Replaces a textual cap and static allocation language with two edits: first, delete 'Not more than $1,200,000 of each' and replace with a directive treating the allocation as part of each appropriation; second, change the $200,000 reference so the payment equals the greater of 0.0375 percent of the appropriation or $200,000. Practically, this makes the commission payment a scaled, predictable floor linked to appropriation size; it may increase payouts when overall appropriations grow and prevents the previous cap from limiting transfers. Financial officers will need to update allocation spreadsheets and guidance to reflect the percentage calculation and confirm which appropriation base is used for the percentage.
Add alternative marine-fuel projects and define fuel terms
Adds alternative fuel facilities and fuel-transport activities to the list of eligible boating infrastructure projects and inserts statutory definitions for 'alternative fuel station facility', 'alternative marine fuels', and 'drop-in fuels'. The definitions reference ASTM standards and specify renewable-content thresholds for different fuel types (renewable gasoline blend minimums, renewable diesel up to 100% by volume, biodiesel blend caps). Grant administrators must incorporate these definitions into program guidance, update application scoring to evaluate fuel projects, and verify technical compliance (e.g., fuel spec adherence and safe storage). The clause specifically focuses on facilities serving transient nontrailerable recreational vessels, so project scope and target users are narrowly defined.
Create a 3% excise rate for portable electronically-aerated bait containers
Inserts a new paragraph in IRC section 4161(a) specifying a 3 percent excise-tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers and makes the change effective for articles sold by manufacturers, producers, or importers after enactment. Tax and compliance teams for manufacturers and importers will need to update pricing, remittance, and reporting processes; Treasury and IRS systems that allocate excise receipts and deposit them into sport-fishing restoration accounts will need to reflect the new rate and track revenue impacts.
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
- Marinas and boatyards that qualify for Boating Infrastructure Grant funds — they can now apply for federal dollars to build, renovate, or maintain alternative marine-fuel storage and dispensing facilities or to fund fuel-transport logistics that serve transient nontrailerable recreational vessels.
- Manufacturers, importers, and retailers of portable electronically-aerated bait containers — the new 3% excise rate lowers tax liability compared with the previous 10% treatment for these articles, improving margins or allowing lower consumer prices.
- Interstate fisheries commissions — the revised allocation language guarantees a payment tied to appropriation size (the greater of 0.0375% or $200,000), which may increase stable funding versus the prior capped arrangement.
- Recreational boaters seeking lower-carbon fuel options — if marinas invest in alternative-fuel infrastructure, boaters gain access to a wider range of drop-in, renewable-content fuels compatible with many marine engines.
- Grant applicants proposing innovative fuel projects — the statutory definitions reduce eligibility ambiguity and let applicants design projects that clearly meet federal criteria.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal restoration programs and the Treasury — reduced excise receipts from the lower bait-container rate shrink the revenue stream that supports some sport-fishing restoration activities, requiring budgetary offsets or trade-offs within program allocations.
- Program administrators at USFWS/NOAA or other agencies — agencies must revise guidance, eligibility checklists, and grant scoring to incorporate new fuel definitions and compute the revised interstate-commission payment floor, incurring administrative workload and possible systems changes.
- Traditional fuel suppliers and infrastructure projects that do not support alternative fuels — they face increased competition for grant dollars as alternative-fuel projects become eligible under BIG, potentially crowding out other project types.
- Manufacturers and importers of other taxable fishing equipment — any revenue shortfall from the bait-container rate change may increase pressure to adjust other excise rates or program priorities, indirectly affecting pricing and program funding elsewhere.
- Smaller states or applicants that previously relied on a capped-share distribution — changes to the cap and floor mechanics may reallocate funding mixes, producing winners and losers among states and commissions depending on appropriation levels.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is that the bill expands program scope to encourage cleaner marine fuels and guarantees minimum support to interstate fisheries commissions while simultaneously reducing a narrowly targeted excise tax that helps fund restoration — a collision between policy goals to modernize boating infrastructure and the fiscal need to preserve dedicated restoration revenues, with agencies left to reconcile competing priorities under constrained appropriations.
The bill bundles three distinct technical changes that pull in opposite directions financially and administratively. Expanding BIG eligibility to alternative marine-fuel infrastructure creates new opportunities for reducing boating emissions and supporting fuel transitions, but it also enlarges the universe of competing projects for a finite grant pool.
Program managers must decide how to prioritize traditional harbor accessibility projects versus newer fuel investments, and the statute does not supply a separate funding stream for that competition.
On revenue and distribution, replacing hard caps with a percentage-linked floor for interstate commissions increases alignment with appropriation size but creates volatility: when appropriations are low, the percentage floor may produce a different outcome than prior expectations, and agencies will need to confirm which appropriation line is the calculation base. The excise-tax reduction for portable aerated-bait containers shrinks a dedicated revenue source that historically funds restoration efforts; the bill does not include an offset.
That trade-off — broaden eligibility and cut a narrowly targeted excise — raises an unresolved question about long-term funding sufficiency for Dingell-Johnson programs.
Implementation details are thin. The statutory fuel definitions reference ASTM specifications and renewable-content thresholds, but the bill does not assign an agency to certify fuel conformance or to set safety and compatibility guidelines for storage and dispensing at marinas.
Neither does it address lifecycle-emissions accounting, long-term fuel availability, or engine warranties that influence whether marinas and boaters will actually adopt these fuels. These gaps will fall to agency guidance and grant conditions, which creates discretion but also regulatory uncertainty for applicants and industry.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.