The bill tasks the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey with producing national-scale maps that forecast shallow coastal groundwater rise and associated flooding and saltwater intrusion through 2100, and with publishing those maps on a publicly accessible website. It also directs the Director to arrange a two-stage study—via the National Academies and in coordination with several federal agencies—examining how projected groundwater rise will affect infrastructure and public health.
For practitioners, the bill creates a federal baseline dataset and an expert assessment intended to inform planning and investment decisions. It does not impose new regulatory duties on states or private owners, but it establishes information and recommendations that will likely shape future funding, design standards, and risk assessments for coastal infrastructure and water systems.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires USGS to develop decadal projection maps of coastal groundwater rise (with associated flooding and saltwater-intrusion indicators) and to host them on a public website. It also directs USGS to contract with the National Academies for a two-phase study—Phase I on infrastructure and Phase II on public-health impacts—and to report findings to Congress.
Who It Affects
Federal science agencies (USGS, NOAA, EPA, NIST) and the National Academies will carry out work; coastal planners, infrastructure owners (roads, utilities, wastewater systems), and drinking-water managers will be primary end-users. Congress and federal funders will see recommendations that could influence grant and design guidance.
Why It Matters
The bill creates the first explicit national program to translate sea-level trends into coastal groundwater forecasts and concrete impact analysis, filling an information gap that complicates adaptation planning at state, Tribal, and local levels.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act directs the USGS Director to stand up a national program that maps how shallow coastal groundwater tables are likely to shift as sea level changes. Those maps must extend in decadal increments through the end of the century and include indicators of changing flood risk and saltwater intrusion.
USGS is also instructed to identify priority zones where groundwater-driven flooding risk is elevated and to recommend where additional research infrastructure and resources are needed to improve both average and extreme-event projections.
Once mapping work is complete, the Director must seek an agreement with the National Academies to run a two-part study on consequences for built systems and health. The first part focuses on exposure of roads, pipelines, sewers, parking structures, foundations, and underground utilities and evaluates changes in soil liquefaction risk during earthquakes.
The second part addresses how rising groundwater could mobilize buried contaminants, threaten drinking water and agricultural water supplies, and otherwise create public‑health risks.The bill requires a public-facing website so community planners and emergency managers can access maps and related materials. It also requires USGS to submit a report to Congress with the National Academies’ findings and recommendations.
The statute defines ‘‘groundwater rise’’ narrowly (upward movement of shallow coastal water table from sea-level fluctuations) and authorizes an initial appropriation to USGS to support the mapping effort. The law frames the deliverables as informational—maps, a study, and recommendations—rather than regulatory mandates for adaptation actions by other levels of government.
The Five Things You Need to Know
USGS must develop decadal groundwater-rise projection maps for all continental U.S. coastal areas with projections through 2100 and indicators for flood risk and saltwater intrusion.
The statute gives USGS 18 months after enactment to establish the mapping program and requires a public website to display the outputs.
$5,000,000 is authorized for USGS to carry out the mapping work for fiscal years 2025 and 2026.
Within six months after the mapping work finishes, USGS must seek an agreement with the National Academies to conduct a two‑phase study—Phase I on infrastructure exposure and liquefaction risk, Phase II on mobilized contamination and threats to drinking and agricultural water.
USGS must submit a report to Congress summarizing the National Academies’ study findings not later than three years after the study is initiated.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s name as the Groundwater Rise and Infrastructure Preparedness Act of 2025. This is a technical provision but signals the bill’s dual focus on both environmental forecasting and infrastructure preparedness.
Findings
Lays out Congress’s factual basis: observed sea-level rise, the varied local response of coastal groundwater, and the multiple infrastructure and health risks posed by groundwater rise. The findings frame the mapping and study work as responding to a national information gap rather than imposing regulatory remedies.
Program to map coastal groundwater rise and publish forecasts
Directs the USGS Director to establish a mapping program that produces decadal projections through 2100 for all continental U.S. coastal areas, assesses changing flood risk and saltwater intrusion, and identifies priority risk zones. The provision also mandates a public website for dissemination and requests recommendations to improve projection accuracy, including for extreme events that combine tides, rainfall, and storms. Practically, this creates a centralized federal dataset meant for planners but leaves methodology details (resolution, confidence intervals, modeling tools) to agency implementation and future guidance.
Two‑phase National Academies study on infrastructure and public health
Requires USGS—working with NOAA, EPA, NIST, and other relevant agencies—to seek an agreement with the National Academies for a two-phase study. Phase I must evaluate exposure of built infrastructure (roads, sewers, utilities, foundations) and consider soil liquefaction implications; Phase II must analyze mobilization of subsurface contamination and threats to drinking and agricultural water from saltwater intrusion. The provision requires a congressional report summarizing results and recommendations to federal decision-makers for mitigation and adaptation planning.
Narrow statutory definitions and initial funding authorization
Defines key terms—'Director,' 'groundwater rise,' and 'National Academies'—to limit ambiguity about scope and implementing partners. The bill also authorizes $5 million for FY2025–2026 to support the mapping work, signaling modest startup funding rather than a long-term appropriation stream; additional funding would require congressional action.
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
- Coastal planners and emergency managers — gain consistent, federal-level maps and public data layers to inform zoning, evacuation planning, and adaptation prioritization.
- Water and wastewater utilities — receive forecasts that clarify future saltwater intrusion and flooding exposure, helping them target upgrades and treatment strategies.
- State, Tribal, and local adaptation programs — obtain national baseline analyses and priority-area IDs that can strengthen grant applications and planning decisions.
- Engineers and consultants — obtain a standardized dataset and expert study findings that can be incorporated into design standards and risk assessments.
- Federal agencies (NOAA, EPA, NIST) — benefit from coordinated scientific inputs that can guide future technical guidance, research priorities, and interagency programs.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. Geological Survey — must allocate staff time, modeling capacity, and data-management resources to produce nationwide maps and maintain the public site, beyond the initial $5 million authorization.
- Congress/federal budget — additional appropriation will likely be required if mapping, database maintenance, and subsequent research needs expand beyond the two-year startup authorization.
- Infrastructure owners (local governments, utilities, private owners) — may face planning and capital costs once maps identify vulnerability and trigger retrofit or relocation decisions.
- National Academies and participating federal agencies — will need to dedicate expert time and may require funds to carry out the two-phase study and stakeholder engagement.
- Communities with limited planning capacity — although they benefit from data, they may incur costs to interpret the maps and translate findings into actionable projects without new federal grants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between delivering a single, nationally consistent set of groundwater‑rise forecasts quickly enough to inform urgent planning, and the scientific reality that coastal groundwater responses are highly local and uncertain—so faster national products may mislead local decisions unless accompanied by clear uncertainty characterization and sustained resources to refine local models.
The bill sets up an information program rather than a funding or regulatory regime for adaptation, but several implementation choices will determine its practical impact. First, mapping methodology (model selection, spatial resolution, treatment of groundwater variability, and confidence intervals) will shape how useful maps are for local decisions; insufficient resolution or unclear uncertainty bounds could lead to misinterpretation.
Second, the authorized $5 million is clearly a startup allocation; sustained, high‑resolution mapping, model validation, and website maintenance will almost certainly require further appropriations. Third, the National Academies study will provide recommendations, but it cannot force remedial action—states, tribes, and localities retain land-use and infrastructure authority, and their capacity to act will vary widely.
There is also an operational tension between producing timely outputs and ensuring scientific rigor. Rapid, coarse national products can help prioritize areas for attention but risk creating false precision if local hydrogeologic conditions differ; conversely, waiting for high‑confidence, localized models may delay decisions.
Finally, the statute is silent on data standards, liability for third-party use of the maps, and coordination mechanisms with existing state or regional mapping efforts—ambiguities that could complicate federal‑state-tribal coordination and leave room for duplication or inconsistent messaging.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.