Sponsors (6)
The bill balances keeping federal payment authority and cost-share exemptions that sustain youth conservation programs and tribal projects against changes that could lower federal contributions or narrow exemptions, which would reduce projects and force vulnerable communities to find matching funds.
Indigenous and Native Hawaiian communities retain access to fully funded conservation projects because projects on Indian and Hawaiian home lands remain exempt from cost-sharing.
Qualified youth and conservation corps (including students participating in such programs) can continue to receive federal support for conservation projects if the Secretary's payment authority is preserved or clarified.
If the amendment narrows or removes the exemption for Indian and Hawaiian home lands, tribal and Native Hawaiian projects could be forced to provide matching funds they lack, threatening those projects' viability.
If the amendment reduces the federal cost-share below current levels (e.g., below 75%), conservation corps and related projects could face funding shortfalls leading to fewer projects and fewer opportunities for participants.
Based on analysis of 2 sections of legislative text.
Replaces the first and second sentences of 16 U.S.C. § 1729(a)(1), altering the text of the Public Lands Corps cost‑sharing provision; practical effect unclear from excerpt.
Official title: Amend the Public Lands Corps Act of 1993 to modify the cost-sharing requirement for conservation projects carried out by a qualified youth or conservation corps, and for other purposes.
Introduced April 1, 2025 by James Risch · Last progress April 1, 2025
Edits the statutory text of the Public Lands Corps Act cost‑sharing provision by replacing language in the first and second sentences of 16 U.S.C. § 1729(a)(1). The amendment targets how the law describes the Secretary's authority to pay a portion of project costs and the permitted nonfederal share, but the provided excerpt does not show the replacement wording, so the practical effect (technical correction vs. programmatic change) cannot be determined from the snippet alone. The bill consists of two short sections: a targeted amendment to the cost‑sharing sentence(s) in the Public Lands Corps Act and an otherwise empty second section. Because the specific replacement text is not shown, the bill appears to be either a minor technical/clarifying change or a narrow substantive change to cost‑sharing rules for Public Lands Corps projects.