The MORE DOT Grants Act creates a targeted pathway for counties (and local and Tribal governments within them) that have small populations and where federal land comprises a majority of acreage to win and implement Department of Transportation discretionary grants. The bill defines those jurisdictions as “High‑Density Public Land Counties,” cuts most local matching requirements in half, requires the Secretary of Transportation to provide extra technical assistance on request, and directs priorities and special consideration in competitive DOT programs.
This changes competitive dynamics for a broad suite of DOT programs—from BUILD/RAISE and Mega grants through transit and airport discretionary grants—by lowering financial and procedural barriers that historically have limited access for small, federally dominated counties and Tribal governments. Compliance officers, grant teams, and state/tribal transportation officials need to prepare for altered match calculations, documentation of federal land percentages, and new outreach and technical assistance channels from DOT.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill designates counties with populations ≤100,000 and more than 50% federal land as High‑Density Public Land Counties and halves local matching requirements for those counties and local/Tribal governments inside them. It also directs extra, on‑request technical assistance and instructs the Secretary to prioritize applicants that haven’t received DOT discretionary support in the prior 10 years.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include eligible counties and the units of local government and Tribal governments within them; DOT program offices that administer BUILD/RAISE, Mega, INFRA, rural surface, transit discretionary grants, and airport discretionary funding; and other competitive applicants who may face shifted priorities. State DOTs and grant administrators will handle new match calculations and TA coordination.
Why It Matters
The measure redirects competitive grant access toward small, federally dominated jurisdictions that have struggled to meet matching and technical application demands. It creates new implementation duties at DOT and may change which projects win national discretionary funding, especially within rural and Tribal communities adjacent to federal lands.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by naming and defining its target: a “High‑Density Public Land County” is a county (or equivalent) with a population of no more than 100,000 people per the latest Census estimates and where federal ownership or management exceeds 50 percent of the land. That two‑part test is central: it determines eligibility for reduced matches, priority, and the extra services DOT must provide.
For eligible counties and any local or Tribal governments inside them, the statute halves the local match requirement for a long list of DOT discretionary funding streams—BUILD/RAISE, Mega, INFRA, rural surface, several transit programs (including Low‑No and bus grants), airport improvement, CRISI, the Federal Lands Access Program, and any other DOT discretionary grant that awards funds to counties or local/Tribal governments. The Secretary must also, on request, provide additional technical assistance during the annual application period for those programs.The Secretary must give priority in application approvals to eligible jurisdictions that have not received support under the relevant program in the previous ten years, and the bill explicitly allows the Secretary to prioritize Tribal governments for technical assistance.
For programs that have congressionally designated rural set‑asides, the Secretary must give special consideration to eligible counties and may give special consideration to Tribal governments within those counties.Finally, the statute gives DOT discretion to ease or adapt application and scoring rules that systematically disadvantage small, isolated jurisdictions. That includes flexibility around scoring metrics that reward sheer scale (jobs served or people reached), partnership requirements that presume nearby institutions, cash‑on‑hand or financial thresholds, and overly technical application processes.
The provision is intentionally broad, authorizing DOT to offer “other support” it deems appropriate to reduce practical barriers to applying and receiving award money.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines a High‑Density Public Land County as one with ≤100,000 residents (latest Census estimate) AND more than 50% of land owned or managed by the federal government.
For qualifying DOT discretionary programs, the bill reduces local matching requirements by 50% for High‑Density Public Land Counties and any local or Tribal government within them.
The Secretary must provide additional technical assistance on request before and during the annual application window for qualifying grant programs.
The Secretary must prioritize applications from eligible counties or governments that have not received support under a qualifying program during the previous 10 years and may prioritize Tribal governments for technical assistance.
DOT may adjust or offer flexibility on application scoring (size/impact metrics), partnership prerequisites, cash‑on‑hand requirements, and overly complex application elements to remove barriers for eligible jurisdictions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s formal name: the More Opportunities for Rural Economies from DOT Grants Act (MORE DOT Grants Act). This is purely a caption but frames the statute’s intent toward rural and federally dominated counties.
Definitions and scope
Sets the eligibility test and enumerates the DOT discretionary programs covered. The two‑part eligibility test—population cap (≤100,000) and federal land majority (>50%)—will govern every downstream relief and priority. The list of qualifying programs is broad and explicit (BUILD/RAISE, Mega, INFRA, rural surface grants, multiple transit programs, AIP, CRISI, Federal Lands Access, Reconnecting Communities, SMART grants, and a catch‑all for other discretionary programs that award to counties/local/Tribal governments). Practically, agencies must cross‑walk which existing grant authorities fall inside this catch‑all and update guidance and IT systems to flag eligible applications.
Reduced local matching requirement
Mandates a 50 percent reduction in any local-match requirement for eligible jurisdictions across all qualifying programs “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” That language removes the need to amend each underlying statute, but it also raises implementation questions about which dollars count toward match, timing for calculating the reduced share, and interactions with other federal, state, or local cost‑share rules.
Technical assistance and 10‑year priority
Requires DOT to provide additional technical assistance on request during the application period and directs the Secretary to prioritize applications from eligible jurisdictions that haven’t received program support in the prior decade. The assistance is demand‑driven (applicant must request it), and the 10‑year lookback creates an explicit priority metric that grant officers must apply consistently—requiring historical award checks and documentation.
Special consideration, rural set‑asides, and flexible application rules
Directs DOT to give special consideration to eligible counties with respect to congressionally designated rural set‑asides and authorizes the Secretary to prioritize Tribal governments for special consideration. Separately, DOT may provide broader flexibility—waiving or adapting scoring metrics, partnership expectations, cash‑on‑hand thresholds, and simplifying technical application requirements when they act as barriers. That delegation is intentionally broad, giving DOT program offices latitude to redesign scoring rubrics, create alternate evidence paths, or change administrative requirements to make smaller applicants competitive.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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
- High‑Density Public Land Counties (≤100,000 residents and >50% federal land): they receive a straight 50% cut to local matching requirements and priority in approval and rural set‑aside consideration, which materially lowers the fiscal barrier to large capital projects.
- Tribal governments located within those counties: the bill authorizes prioritized technical assistance and allows for special consideration in rural set‑asides, increasing Tribal access to multiple DOT discretionary funding lines.
- Small local governments and special districts within eligible counties: local transit agencies, airport sponsors, and county road authorities that previously struggled to meet match or complex application standards can access simplified processes, lower match obligations, and targeted TA.
- Community project sponsors and rural grantees: organizations that implement projects on behalf of eligible jurisdictions (consultants, local contractors, nonprofit partners) gain a larger pipeline of fundable projects where prior match or scale requirements had been prohibitive.
- DOT program offices (in a programmatic sense): while this increases workload, program offices gain a statutory mechanism to justify adjusted scoring and outreach for rural, federally dominated areas—allowing them to meet congressional rural access objectives without separate statutory amendments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal government (DOT and Treasury): lower local matches shift a greater share of project costs to federal funding streams, increasing federal outlays or requiring reprioritization within existing appropriations.
- Other competitive applicants: jurisdictions that previously won under national discretionary competitions may face stiffer competition from newly advantaged eligible counties, especially where the bill’s priorities and special consideration apply.
- DOT program offices and regional staff: the requirement to provide additional technical assistance, perform 10‑year award history checks, and exercise broad discretion to adapt scoring and requirements raises staffing, training, and systems costs—potentially without dedicated appropriations.
- State DOTs and grant administrators: they will need to coordinate adjusted match calculations, reconcile state/local funding rules with the federal 50% reduction, and assist eligible localities in meeting new administrative pathways.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate aims—improving access to federal transportation funds for small, federally dominated counties and Tribal governments, and preserving the merit‑based, impact‑focused selection that drives national discretionary programs. Expanding access by lowering match and easing application rules helps equity and feasibility but risks diluting scale‑based scoring metrics that are intended to maximize nationwide return on investment and could increase federal spending or shift awards away from larger projects.
The statute’s eligibility hinge—“more than 50 percent of the land is owned or managed by the Federal Government”—poses practical measurement and timing issues. Federal land datasets vary (ownership vs management, different agency classifications) and are updated on different cadences than Census population estimates.
Implementing guidance will need to specify the authoritative land ownership dataset, the date for the ownership calculation, and how to treat mixed‑use or overlapping jurisdiction lands (e.g., state trust lands within federal reservations). Without that clarity, applicants will face uncertainty and potential disputes over eligibility.
The bill deliberately delegates broad discretion to the Secretary to modify scoring, partnership, and financial requirements. That expedites relief to small applicants but creates variance in how different DOT programs apply relief: two programs could treat the same applicant differently.
The “may provide” language also leaves important choices—what constitutes sufficient simplification, or how much flexibility is appropriate—to DOT’s internal policy process. Finally, the statutory 50% match reduction is budgetary in effect: if appropriations do not rise to cover larger federal shares, the law will intensify competition for slices of the same discretionary pots or force reallocation away from other priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.