This bill sets up two focused Geographic Programs inside EPA — one for the Tijuana River watershed and one for the New River — to plan and fund restoration, stormwater control, water reuse, and related public‑health projects that address flows from Mexico into the United States. It requires EPA to name a Program Director, convene a management conference, produce an action plan and priority project list, and distribute grants and technical assistance (including through agreements with the North American Development Bank and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission).
Why it matters: the measure pairs a defined project pipeline and coordination structure with dedicated, multi‑year authorizations ($50 million per year for each program, FY2026–2036) and a separate border infrastructure program to finance eligible drinking‑water, wastewater, and stormwater projects near the border. For agencies, utilities, and local governments on both sides of the border, the bill crystallizes federal leadership, funding sources, and selection criteria — but it also shifts the hard questions about operations & maintenance financing, cross‑jurisdiction approvals, and cost‑sharing into implementation and intergovernmental negotiations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes EPA Geographic Programs for the Tijuana River and the New River to develop action plans, create priority project lists, provide grants and technical assistance, and coordinate cross‑jurisdictional work with Mexican counterparts and the International Boundary and Water Commission. Separately, it creates a United States–Mexico border water infrastructure program with eligibility rules for projects and entities within 100 km of the border.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies (EPA, State Dept., IBWC, USACE, NOAA, USFWS, DHS/CBP), California state and local governments (Imperial Beach, San Diego, Calexico, County of Imperial), Indian Tribes in the watersheds, utilities and water districts, nonprofit conservation groups, the North American Development Bank, and Mexican water authorities (e.g., CONAGUA).
Why It Matters
It converts long‑standing cross‑border water quality problems into a funded federal program with a project pipeline and reporting requirements, making it easier to coordinate grants and capital projects — and to prioritize which works get built. The bill raises implementation issues (permits, matching funds, O&M financing, and Mexican approvals) that will determine whether dollars translate into long‑term improvements.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates two EPA‑managed Geographic Programs: one dedicated to the Tijuana River watershed and one to the New River watershed. For each, EPA must designate a Program Director within 180 days and, shortly after, convene a management conference under section 320 of the Clean Water Act to bring federal, state, Tribal, local, nonprofit, and Mexican partners into an integrated planning process.
That structure is intended to unify monitoring, science, and project selection across multiple jurisdictions.
Each program must produce a water‑quality action plan within one year that builds on prior IBWC Minutes and existing environmental impact analyses and that contains a priority project list. The action plan must specify selection criteria, estimate O&M needs for both existing and newly constructed infrastructure, and identify potential funding sources for those ongoing costs.
EPA is directed to prioritize projects that deliver measurable public‑health and habitat outcomes, emphasize natural/green infrastructure and water reuse where appropriate, and coordinate with Mexican authorities for projects located in Mexico.To implement projects, EPA may award grants, provide technical assistance, and enter interagency and international cooperative agreements. The Administrator may delegate grant management to the North American Development Bank or a similar manager, and may require payments under cooperative agreements; receipts go into EPA’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account and remain available without further appropriation.
For both the Tijuana and New River programs, the bill authorizes $50 million per year (FY2026–2036) and allows up to 5% of those funds for administration. EPA may set project‑level federal share requirements.Title III establishes a separate United States–Mexico border water infrastructure program that funds feasibility, design, construction, and O&M‑related activities for eligible projects proposed by entities within 100 kilometers of the border.
Eligible projects include drinking‑water, wastewater, and stormwater (including green infrastructure and reuse), but explicitly exclude projects that create new water supply, enable new development, or reduce ecosystem flows. Project selection must prioritize action‑plan projects and those that produce clear benefits on the U.S. side.
Across the act, the U.S. Section of the IBWC is empowered to construct, operate, and maintain projects and to enter agreements with Mexican authorities; the Secretary of State participates in cross‑border coordination. Finally, the President must include estimated expenditures for these programs in the annual budget, and EPA must report every two years on funded projects and O&M effectiveness.
The Five Things You Need to Know
EPA must designate a Program Director for each Geographic Program within 180 days and convene a section 320 management conference within 120 days after that designation.
EPA must issue a water quality action plan for each watershed within 1 year and update it every 5 years; each plan must include a prioritized project list and O&M cost estimates.
The bill authorizes $50 million per year for each program (Tijuana and New River) for fiscal years 2026–2036, with up to 5% available for administrative costs, and funds remain available until expended.
Title III’s border infrastructure program limits eligible entities to those within 100 kilometers of the border and excludes projects that increase water supply, enable new development, or reduce ecosystem flows.
EPA may use the North American Development Bank (or similar) to manage grants, may accept payments under cooperative agreements (deposited to the STAG account), and may transfer funds to the IBWC Commissioner for construction and O&M.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions and scope
This section defines terms used throughout the bill (Administrator, Commissioner, New River, Tijuana River, water reuse, Indian Tribe, Mexican). Those definitions fix the geographic and institutional scope of the statute (for example, what counts as the New River and the Tijuana River watersheds) and incorporate EPA’s 2020 National Water Reuse Action Plan definition of ‘water reuse,’ which directs future project eligibility toward reuse and recycling activities.
Tijuana River Program: governance, plan, and grants
Title I establishes the Tijuana River Public Health and Water Quality Restoration Program. It requires EPA to name a Program Director charged with integrating multi‑agency planning, stakeholder engagement, and coordination with IBWC and Mexican counterparts. The Administrator must convene a Clean Water Act section 320 management conference to create a shared governance table. The action plan must incorporate the alternatives selected in the USMCA Mitigation Final EIS (Alternative 2), produce a prioritized project list covering Mexican and U.S. projects, and include O&M funding estimates and potential financing sources. EPA may fund projects, enter interagency and international MOUs, require payments from partners (which go into the STAG account), and use grant managers such as the North American Development Bank.
New River Program: California-focused restoration and pilots
Title II mirrors Title I but is tailored to the New River and California governance bodies (Calexico New River Committee, California‑Mexico Border Relations Council, Imperial Irrigation District, Salton Sea Authority). It authorizes identical annual funding, requires a New River action plan and priority list, and includes an explicit pilot mechanism to fund operations and maintenance for projects that might otherwise fail without O&M support. Like Title I, it allows cooperative agreements, payments to EPA, and grant administration through external organizations.
United States–Mexico border water infrastructure program
This title creates a separate finance and assistance program for border water infrastructure. It defines eligible entities (IBWC U.S. Section, states, local governments, tribes, water districts within 100 km of the border) and eligible projects (drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, water reuse, green infrastructure). Crucially, it excludes projects for new water supply, projects that reduce flows to ecosystems, and projects that enable new development. The Administrator must prioritize projects found in action plans or those with immediate U.S. public‑health benefits, and may set terms, conditions, and cost‑sharing at the project level.
IBWC authority, cross‑border agreements, and funding flows
The Commissioner is explicitly authorized to study, design, build, operate, and maintain wastewater and stormwater projects in both watersheds; the Secretary of State must participate in cross‑border agreements. The title authorizes funding of projects located in Mexico if they’re in an action plan and approved by EPA, and clarifies that IBWC authority remains intact. The bill also requires the President’s annual budget submission to show agency estimates and projected appropriations for these programs, and mandates biennial EPA reports to Congress on funded projects and O&M effectiveness.
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 and border communities (Imperial Beach, San Diego, Calexico): stand to get targeted capital investments and coordinated monitoring that reduce beach closures, sewage exposure, and odors—improving public health and local recreation economies.
- California and local water and sanitation agencies: receive federal planning support, grant dollars, and an interagency forum that can simplify multi‑jurisdictional permitting and financing for complex cross‑border projects.
- Tribes within the watersheds: the bill requires consultation and invites Tribal participation in management conferences, creating access to grants and data resources for on‑reservation public health and habitat work.
- Conservation and community nonprofits: gain new grant opportunities tied to prioritized project lists and science‑based monitoring programs, increasing capacity for habitat restoration, green infrastructure, and public outreach.
- North American Development Bank (NADB) and similar grant managers: the bill formalizes a role for NADB to receive advance payments and manage grants, strengthening their position as an administrative partner in cross‑border financing.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA and federal partners: must stand up two new Geographic Programs, hire or reassign staff (Program Directors), run management conferences, meet reporting obligations, and manage grant programs — all requiring administrative resources beyond the 5% set‑aside if implementation scales up.
- Local governments and utilities (U.S. and Mexican): expected to be project proposers and implementers and will likely face cost‑share, permitting, and long‑term O&M responsibilities that can outstrip initial construction grants.
- U.S. taxpayers and appropriators: the bill authorizes $100 million per year total across both watershed programs (FY2026–2036) plus additional potential border infrastructure funding; sustained appropriations decisions will determine actual outlays.
- Mexican agencies and utilities: projects in Mexico must secure Mexican stakeholder approvals, meet Mexican Federal and State requirements, and, where required, share costs — creating financial and political obligations for Mexican partners.
- IBWC Commissioner and US Section: given explicit authority to construct, operate, and maintain projects, IBWC may inherit significant capital and O&M responsibilities if EPA transfers funds or tasks to the Commissioner.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: protect U.S. public health by spending federal money on infrastructure and projects that reach across a sovereign border, while ensuring those investments are sustainable and respectful of Mexican jurisdiction and long‑term operations financing — a choice between immediate domestic safeguards and the sustained, cooperative investments required to fix upstream causes.
The bill aims to pair capital dollars with a planning process, but it leaves several implementation pressures unresolved. First, the statute repeatedly requires identification of O&M costs and potential funding approaches, yet offers no dedicated, long‑term O&M funding stream beyond project‑level arrangements and the vague ability to require partner payments.
Without a clear O&M finance mechanism, new infrastructure risks under‑maintenance and early failure — a common problem in cross‑border projects.
Second, much of the work depends on Mexican cooperation, approvals, and standards. The bill conditions funding of projects in Mexico on Mexican agency support and compliance with host‑country rules, but it also authorizes U.S. funds for projects located in Mexico if EPA approves.
That creates practical and diplomatic complexity: coordinating procurement, environmental review, labor standards, and legal remedies across two sovereign systems will require sustained diplomatic and technical effort, and could slow delivery.
Finally, delegation of grant administration to the North American Development Bank or similar entities solves capacity issues but raises governance questions: advance payments to an external manager alter congressional oversight patterns, and the bill’s permissive language on cost‑sharing formulas, eligibility thresholds, and interagency terms leaves substantive allocation disputes to implementation. Prioritization rules favor projects that benefit U.S. communities, which may produce rapid visible wins but could underfund upstream Mexican investments that are essential to lasting watershed health.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.