The bill directs the Director of the National Park Service to establish a systemwide program within 180 days to reduce disposable plastic products in National Park Service (NPS) units and to eliminate the sale and distribution of such products where practicable. Implementation is delegated to regional directors, who must weigh a specified set of factors — from infrastructure costs for refill stations to public health and contractual implications with concessioners — in deciding how far to go in each park.
The measure pairs operational directives (education, signage, incorporation into concessioner and cooperating association agreements) with monitoring: regional directors must evaluate the program at least every two years and send those evaluations to the Director and the Secretary. The bill’s reach is broad — it covers disposable beverage bottles, film plastic bags, plastic foodware (including items labeled compostable/biodegradable), and expanded polystyrene — but it does not appropriate funds or create penalties, leaving implementation choices and costs to the NPS and its partners.
At a Glance
What It Does
Mandates that the NPS Director create a program to reduce disposable plastic products within 180 days and requires regional directors to eliminate sales of bottled water and other disposable plastics to the greatest extent feasible after weighing enumerated factors. The law also mandates a proactive visitor-education strategy, consistent unit-level implementation through concession agreements, and biennial evaluations submitted to agency leadership.
Who It Affects
NPS headquarters and regional offices, park superintendents, concessioners and cooperating associations that sell food and beverages in parks, manufacturers and vendors of single-use plastic products and bottle-refill infrastructure providers, and visitors dependent on on-site water availability.
Why It Matters
The bill would make reduction of single-use plastics an express, systemwide objective of the NPS and force regional managers to reconcile environmental goals with health, operational, and contractual realities. Its provisions could alter concession contracts, procurement practices, visitor services, and how the agency budgets for infrastructure and public-health testing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Within 180 days of enactment, the bill requires the NPS Director to set up a program that aims to reduce disposable plastic products across the National Park System. Implementation is not centralized by micromanagement from Washington; instead, regional directors — working with park superintendents — get responsibility to tailor actions to units in their region.
The statute emphasizes eliminating sales of water in disposable plastic bottles and cutting other single-use plastics “to the greatest extent feasible,” but leaves the threshold for that judgment to regional officials after they consider a long list of practical factors.
Those factors are operational and cross-cutting: costs and benefits to park operations, waste-reduction potential, bottle-refill station infrastructure and operating costs (including ongoing public-health testing), availability and cost of BPA-free reusables, effects on concessioner revenue and contract interests, and visitor-safety concerns such as dehydration or drinking untreated surface water. The bill also requires regional directors to craft a proactive visitor-education strategy explaining water availability and program rationale, and to post signage directing visitors to refill stations where feasible.To keep implementation coherent within a given park, the bill requires that activities be as consistent as possible across a unit and be incorporated into concessioner operating plans and cooperating-association sales scopes.
Parks that already do not sell bottled water may continue that practice without change. Finally, each region must evaluate the program at least once every two years on specified metrics — public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior, public safety incidents tied to dehydration or surface-water drinking, and disposable-bottle collection rates — and send those evaluations to the Director and Secretary.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Director must establish the plastics-reduction program within 180 days of enactment and delegate implementation to regional directors working with superintendents.
Regional directors must eliminate sale of bottled water and other disposable plastics “to the greatest extent feasible” after weighing up to 13 enumerated factors, including public-health testing costs for refill stations and concession-contract implications such as leaseholder possessory interests.
The bill requires a proactive visitor-education strategy and signage so visitors can find refill stations and come prepared with reusable water bottles.
Regions must conduct and submit biennial evaluations covering public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior, public-safety incidents (including dehydration or drinking from surface water), and disposable bottle collection rates.
The statutory definition of disposable plastic products explicitly includes film carryout bags, plastic foodware marketed as compostable/biodegradable, and expanded polystyrene — potentially sweeping in alternatives often thought of as greener.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Identifies the measure as the "Reducing Waste in National Parks Act." This is procedural but signals the bill’s purpose for interpreting later provisions and cross-referencing in regulations or implementation guidance.
Program establishment and 180‑day deadline
Requires the NPS Director to establish a program for reduction (and, if applicable, elimination) of disposable plastics in the National Park System within 180 days. Practically, that forces headquarters to issue guidance and a program framework quickly, but leaves the substance of park‑level decisions to regional directors and superintendents, preserving operational flexibility.
Eliminate sale and distribution of disposable plastics 'to the greatest extent feasible'
Directs regional directors to eliminate sale of bottled water and other covered disposable plastics where feasible after considering a detailed list of factors (costs/benefits, refill-station infrastructure and operating costs, public health input, concessioner contract implications, signage feasibility, visitor safety, etc.). The provision establishes a multi‑factor balancing test rather than a flat ban, which creates administrable discretion but also requires robust documentation of decisions.
Visitor education and continuity within units
Mandates that regions develop proactive visitor-education strategies explaining water availability and program rationales, and requires consistent implementation within each park unit, including incorporation into concessioner operating plans and cooperating-association sales scopes. This pushes managers to use signage, online materials, and contractual instruments rather than relying solely on ad hoc communication.
Biennial evaluation and reporting
Requires regional directors to conduct evaluations at least every two years on five specific topics — public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior for disposable-plastic products, public-safety incidents tied to dehydration or surface-water drinking, and disposable-bottle collection rates — and submit results to the Director and Secretary. The requirement creates a data loop for leadership oversight but does not include enforcement mechanisms or funding for data collection.
Definitions
Defines key terms: 'disposable plastic products' covers disposable beverage bottles, film plastic carryout bags, plastic foodware (including products labeled compostable/biodegradable), and expanded polystyrene. 'Regional director concerned' is tied to the park’s region and must coordinate with the superintendent. These definitions anchor the program’s scope and may capture materials that some stakeholders view as acceptable alternatives.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Park ecosystems and wildlife — reduced plastic litter lowers ingestion and entanglement risks and can decrease long-term contamination in sensitive park habitats.
- Visitors seeking cleaner park experiences — fewer visible plastic waste streams and better signage/refill access can improve aesthetics and satisfaction for many recreational users.
- Manufacturers and vendors of refill infrastructure and reusable containers — growth in demand for bottle-refill stations, BPA-free reusable bottles, and related services could create new procurement opportunities.
- Public health and waste-management partners — parks that reduce single-use waste may see lower collection and disposal burdens, easing pressure on local waste systems near high-use units.
Who Bears the Cost
- Concessioners and cooperating associations — may face reduced sales of single-use items, need to renegotiate operating plans or invest in new inventory and handling procedures, and could assert contractual claims related to lease or possessory interests.
- Regional NPS offices and superintendents — must absorb planning, installation, and ongoing operating costs for refill infrastructure, signage, public-health testing, and data collection without an appropriation attached to the bill.
- Visitors in low‑service or remote units — may need to adjust behavior (bring reusable bottles) or incur higher upfront costs to buy BPA-free reusables if parks phase out single-use options.
- Producers of single‑use plastics — manufacturers and distributors of disposable bottles, film bags, foodware, and expanded polystyrene may lose institutional sales and face contracting shifts toward reusable or alternative products.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing environmental goals to reduce plastic waste against real operational, public‑health, and contractual constraints: aggressive reductions protect park resources but impose infrastructure costs, risk visitor safety in water-scarce settings, and may collide with concessioner contract rights — yet insufficient action undermines the bill’s purpose.
The statute's core operational rule — eliminate sales 'to the greatest extent feasible' after consideration of enumerated factors — creates significant discretion for regional managers. That flexibility helps tailor actions to parks with widely varying water availability, visitor volume, and existing infrastructure, but it also opens the door to inconsistent application across regions and potential legal challenges from concessioners who can argue economic or contractual harms.
The bill lists many considerations (including leaseholder interests and public-health testing costs), but it does not require a standardized cost-benefit methodology or a minimum performance threshold, which will complicate comparisons and oversight.
Another unresolved implementation challenge is funding. The measure does not appropriate money or create grant authority for infrastructure installation, operational testing, or educational campaigns.
Regions will have to reallocate existing budgets or seek separate appropriations, which could slow rollout or produce uneven implementation. The bill’s inclusion of items marketed as 'compostable' or 'biodegradable' and expanded polystyrene in the definition of disposable plastics raises a policy question about acceptable substitutes: banning those items without clear waste-processing pathways could shift waste burdens elsewhere or push parks toward reusable options that have their own procurement and sanitation costs.
Finally, the bill requires biennial evaluations but lacks enforcement or transparency mechanisms (public posting, independent review), limiting the utility of the reporting requirement for accountability.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.