H.R. 10162 (119th)Bill Overview

STORMWATER Act

domestic policy
Cosponsors
Support
Lean Democratic
Introduced
Aug 27, 2026
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageCommittee

Referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by t…

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Plain-English summaryWhat this bill actually does

This bill amends Section 50217 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to (1) set the number of stormwater centers of excellence to five, (2) extend the authorization and appropriations period from fiscal years 2022–2026 to 2027–2031, and (3) require that one center be located in and focused on the Great Lakes region.

Why people may split

Left emphasizes climate, equity, and research expansion benefits

Watch point

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative amendment that concretely modifies specified subsections of an existing statutory program: it fixes the number of centers at five, extends the authorization period to fiscal years 2027–2031, and requires one center to be located in and focused on the Great Lakes region.

This bill amends Section 50217 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to (1) set the number of stormwater centers of excellence to five, (2) extend the authorization and appropriations period from fiscal years 2022–2026 to 2027–2031, and (3) require that one center be located in and focused on the Great Lakes region.

Passage40/100

Content is narrow and routine so conceptually facile, but authorization-only language, funding uncertainty, and need to be packaged or prioritized limit standalone enactment odds.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative amendment that concretely modifies specified subsections of an existing statutory program: it fixes the number of centers at five, extends the authorization period to fiscal years 2027–2031, and requires one center to be located in and focused on the Great Lakes region.

Contention55/100

Left emphasizes climate, equity, and research expansion benefits

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Federal agenciesFederal agencies

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Federal agenciesContinues federal support for research into stormwater control technologies and resilience.
  • Potential benefitSustains or creates research, technical, and administrative jobs at designated centers.
  • Potential benefitDesignating a Great Lakes center targets regional water quality and stormwater resilience needs.
Likely burdened
  • Federal agenciesExtends a federal program that requires additional appropriations and increases potential federal outlays.
  • Potential burdenMandating a Great Lakes center could reallocate center slots away from other regions.
  • Potential burdenEstablishing and managing centers will create additional administrative and coordination burdens.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

Left emphasizes climate, equity, and research expansion benefits
Progressive85%

Overall supportive.

The bill renews federal support for stormwater research and resilience, adds capacity by specifying five centers, and explicitly protects the Great Lakes region.

Advocates would want stronger funding, equity focus, and community engagement details.

Leans supportive
Centrist70%

Cautiously favorable.

The bill provides continuity and modest program expansion with a clear regional focus, but leaves implementation, costs, and performance metrics undefined.

Supporters would seek cost controls and measurable outcomes.

Leans supportive
Conservative30%

Skeptical.

While recognizing infrastructure resilience value, this persona is wary of expanding federal programs, new ongoing spending, and potential duplication of state responsibilities.

Would demand limits on cost and federal reach.

Likely resistant
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood40/100

Content is narrow and routine so conceptually facile, but authorization-only language, funding uncertainty, and need to be packaged or prioritized limit standalone enactment odds.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • No appropriation amounts or CBO cost estimate included
  • Whether appropriations committees will fund the extended authorization
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

Left emphasizes climate, equity, and research expansion benefits

Content is narrow and routine so conceptually facile, but authorization-only language, funding uncertainty, and need to be packaged or prio…

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused administrative amendment that concretely modifies specified subsections of an existing statutory program: it fixes the number of centers at five, extends…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis