S. 759Senate bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawdonor lobbied itTransportation and Public Works

Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act

Sponsored byTed CruzR-TXIntroduced Feb 26, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 25, 2026) — Signed by President.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Sep 10, 2025

This bill directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to publish geospatial data related to public recreational use of federal waterways (e.g., boating and fishing).

Under the bill, NOAA must consult with relevant stakeholders (including state and local governments, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations) to develop and adopt standards for the coordination and dissemination of geospatial data relating to fishing restrictions and recreational vessels' use of federal waterways, including the exclusive economic zone of the United States (EEZ). (The EEZ generally includes waters between 3 and 200 miles seaward from the U.S. coastline.)

Within four years after the bill is enacted, NOAA must provide geographic information system data on a public website that identifies and describes the locations where and conditions under which certain recreational activities are restricted in federal waterways. Specifically, the website must identify (1) locations where fishing restrictions are imposed, (2) areas in the EEZ with restrictions on specified recreational vessel types, and (3) federally protected areas (e.g., National Marine Sanctuaries). NOAA must also continue to provide digitized navigation information related to the EEZ and make the information available on the website to the extent practicable.

The bill allows NOAA to coordinate and partner with nonfederal entities to carry out this bill. It also directs NOAA to work with other federal agencies to ensure compatibility and interoperability among federal databases with respect to collecting and disseminating geospatial data related to the public outdoor recreational use of the EEZ.

Face Value

as enrolled
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Who lobbied on this

1 organization

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • “…Support for H.R. 187, the MAPWaters Act of 2025. Support for H.R. 3340 and S. 759, the Modernizing Access to Our Public Oceans Act. Support for H.R. 3858, the Sport Fish Restoration, Recreational Boating Safety, and Wildlife…” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

16 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
9
front_range_dadDemoNC-13voted Yea10d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
9
river_readerDemoIL-10voted Yea11d ago
I'd support this and still say the effective date is optimistic. Everything downstream of it assumes agencies move faster than they do. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
9
cecilia_ruizDemoMI-3voted Nay15d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
8
sam_whitfieldDemoMD-7voted Yea12d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
7
abel_commuterDemoNY-1voted Nay12d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
7
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea15d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
1
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Yea15d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
6
MidwestMechanicDemoPA-17voted Nay10d ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
3
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Nay9d ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
6
AnnaLeeCDemoCA-38voted Yea12d ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
6
clay_commuterDemoCA-7voted Nay23d ago
Support, without enthusiasm. A narrow fix now beats a comprehensive one that never arrives. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
3
delta_dawn_laDemoHI-2voted Nay10d ago
I keep going back and forth on this one. The problem is real; I'm not convinced this is the instrument for it. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
harbor_districtDemoOH-4voted Yea15d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
kwame.abadiDemoFL-13voted Yea11d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
2
dustin_reyesDemoNJ-11voted Yea11d ago
The cost estimate assumes full compliance, and full compliance never happens. That gap is where these things go wrong. None of that is settled by the summary.
2
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay23d ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
Your position on S. 759100% Yea · 1 VoteWire user