What This Bill Does
The Urban Canal Modernization Act would amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to let the Interior Secretary authorize extra operation and maintenance work on certain “urban canals of concern.” It defines those canals as transferred works whose failure could put more than 100 people at risk and that the Secretary classifies as urban canal reaches. For those projects, the bill sets a cost-sharing rule: 35% of extraordinary work costs would be paid by the Secretary on a nonreimbursable basis, while the rest would be advanced and later repaid by the operating entity. It also says reimbursable funds under this section count as non-Federal money for other federal grant cost-sharing rules.
- Defines an “urban canal of concern” as a canal reach where failure could put more than 100 people at risk.
- Lets the Secretary of the Interior authorize extraordinary operation and maintenance work on those canals.
- Requires the federal government to pay 35% of those costs on a nonreimbursable basis.
- Lets the remaining costs be advanced by Interior and repaid by the operating entity.
- Counts reimbursable funds as non-Federal money for federal grant cost-sharing purposes.
Who This Bill Affects
For people living near a qualifying urban canal, this bill could improve safety and reliability by making it easier to fund major maintenance before a failure occurs. If you are part of a transferred works operating entity, the bill would reduce the immediate cost burden because 35% of extraordinary work would be paid by Interior on a nonreimbursable basis, with the rest advanced and repaid over time. For most Americans outside affected canal areas, the bill would have little direct day-to-day effect.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Urban water districts and canal operators They would gain a clearer federal mechanism to finance urgent repairs on canals whose failure could threaten public safety. The 35% nonreimbursable federal share lowers the upfront burden for expensive maintenance work.
- Residents living near aging canals The bill is aimed at preventing failures that could affect more than 100 people in a canal reach. Supporters would argue that earlier maintenance is cheaper and safer than responding after a breach or shutdown.
- Local governments in fast-growing urban areas Cities and local agencies often depend on canal infrastructure for water delivery and drainage, but may not have enough capital for extraordinary repairs. The bill could help keep essential systems operating without forcing local budgets to absorb the full cost immediately.
- Fiscal conservatives and budget watchdogs They may object to the federal government paying a nonreimbursable share of costs for facilities that are not fully federal. They could argue the bill expands federal spending and creates a precedent for subsidizing local infrastructure maintenance.
- Non-qualifying canal operators Operators whose canals do not meet the “urban canal of concern” threshold may see the bill as uneven. The 100-person risk threshold and Secretary’s classification could leave some projects without access to the new funding structure.
- Taxpayers concerned about repayment risk Because the remaining costs are advanced and repaid by the operating entity, critics may worry about collection risk or future pressure for additional federal assistance. They may also question whether the federal share is enough to ensure accountability for project selection and cost control.
Key Implications
-
““failure of which would result in an estimated at-risk population of more than 100 individuals””
This sets a relatively narrow eligibility threshold. Only canal reaches with a significant public-safety consequence qualify, so the bill is aimed at higher-risk urban infrastructure rather than all canals.
-
““35 percent shall be provided by the Secretary on a nonreimbursable basis””
The federal government would directly absorb part of the cost, reducing what local operators must repay. That can make large repairs more feasible, but it also means federal dollars are used for a local infrastructure asset.
-
““the remaining amounts shall be advanced by the Secretary””
The rest of the project cost is not forgiven; it is fronted by the federal government and later repaid. This helps with cash flow for operators, but still leaves them responsible for the majority of costs.
-
““reimbursable funds… shall be considered to be a non-Federal source of funds””
This could help projects satisfy matching requirements in other federal grant programs. In practice, it may make canal repair projects easier to stack with other funding sources.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.