MATCH Act Speeds Up Disaster Cleanup, But Puts Local Governments on the Hook for Costs

The “Making Access To Cleanup Happen Act of 2025,” or the MATCH Act, is looking to cut the red tape that snarls up disaster recovery after floods or fires. Specifically, it amends the rules for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP), which helps communities clean up and stabilize land damaged by natural disasters. The big change is this: it allows local sponsors—state or local governments and Indian Tribes—to start spending money on certain emergency cleanup actions before the federal government officially signs off on the agreement. This is a huge shift aimed at getting critical work started immediately instead of waiting months for bureaucracy to catch up. The Secretary of Agriculture has 180 days after the law passes to create a list of eligible early actions, essentially providing a pre-approved menu of tasks local groups can jump on right away.

The Race Against the Clock: Getting Credit for Early Work

Think about a town where a flash flood just wiped out a riverbank, threatening the main highway. Under the old system, that town had to wait for the final federal EWP agreement before hiring crews or buying materials. The MATCH Act changes the game by saying, “Go ahead and start.” If the local sponsor pays for eligible cleanup costs early, and the federal government eventually signs the final agreement, that early spending counts toward the sponsor’s required contribution to the project. This is a clear incentive for speed: you get credit for being proactive. The bill also requires the Secretary to set up a state-level process for sponsors to request permission to start other emergency measures not on the main list, adding flexibility to the early action provision (SEC. 2).

The Fine Print: Who Takes the Risk?

Here’s where the street smarts kick in: while the bill encourages speed, it transfers all the financial risk directly to the local sponsor. The legislation explicitly states that if a sponsor starts work before the official agreement is signed, they are doing so at their own risk. If the Secretary of Agriculture ultimately decides not to enter into an agreement for that project—for any reason—the sponsor is stuck with 100% of the costs they incurred. Imagine a small county government spending a million dollars stabilizing a creek bank, only to have the federal funding fall through. That county is now left holding the bag, potentially crippling its budget. This provision means financially secure sponsors will likely benefit most, while smaller, cash-strapped communities might be too scared to take the risk, defeating the purpose of rapid response.

Why This Matters on Main Street

For communities constantly dealing with the aftermath of severe weather, this bill is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it’s a green light to start repairing essential infrastructure immediately, which means faster recovery for local businesses and residents. On the other hand, it turns disaster cleanup into a high-stakes gamble for local officials. They have to decide if the urgency of the cleanup is worth the risk of losing potentially millions of dollars if the federal paperwork doesn't come through. The effectiveness of the MATCH Act will ultimately depend on the clarity and fairness of the list of eligible actions the Secretary creates within those first 180 days, and whether that list truly covers the immediate, real-world needs of disaster-struck communities.