The bill amends the Clean Water Act to create an Ohio River Basin Restoration Program inside the Environmental Protection Agency, led by a Program Director and supported by an advisory council of State, Tribal, and regional representatives. The Program Office will develop measurable “actionable goals,” a multi-year action plan, award grants and enter interagency agreements, and publish annual reports and updates.
Congressional authorization provides recurring funding to implement the program through FY2030 and requires the EPA to request the program as a separate budget line. The measure centralizes federal coordination for water-quality improvement, flood resilience, habitat restoration, invasive-species control, toxic remediation, and public access projects across a multi‑state watershed — a level of regional programmatic authority the Ohio River currently lacks.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates an Ohio River National Program Office within EPA, led by a Program Director, to develop measurable basin restoration goals and a multi-year action plan, make grants to non‑Federal partners, and enter interagency transfers and agreements to carry out projects.
Who It Affects
EPA and any Federal agency asked to accept transferred funds or enter agreements, State and Tribal governments in the Ohio River watershed, regional commissions, local governments, conservation NGOs, universities, and potential non‑Federal grant recipients.
Why It Matters
It sets up standing federal coordination and funding for basin-scale restoration that prioritizes nature‑based solutions, shifts decisionmaking from ad hoc project-by-project actions to a strategic plan, and creates new grant and interagency pathways for implementing large, cross‑jurisdictional projects.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill establishes a permanent program office inside EPA focused exclusively on the Ohio River Basin. The Program Director — appointed by the EPA Administrator — is charged with coordinating EPA actions in the basin, developing measurable restoration goals, drafting and updating a multi‑year action plan, and maintaining public transparency through a website and annual reports.
The office must actively engage Tribal Governments and coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs on consultation.
An advisory council formed by the Program Director will include representatives from each State that lies wholly or partly in the Ohio River Basin, representatives from the lower, middle, and upper basin segments, each Tribal Government in the basin, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. The council is intended as the primary forum for intergovernmental planning and stakeholder input during development and updates of the goals and action plan.Program activities are broad: projects must advance water‑quality improvements, flood and storm resilience, fish and wildlife habitat restoration, invasive species control, toxic substance remediation, recreation and public access improvements, and monitoring and outreach.
The Program Director may issue grants or enter agreements with States, Tribes, local governments, nonprofits, universities, and individuals. Projects should, where practicable, use natural infrastructure and repair or remove structures such as culverts, levees, and dams to restore ecological functions.Project selection is guided by principles that include equitable geographic distribution across the basin, measurable and reportable environmental outcomes tied to the action plan, economic co‑benefits, feasibility and timely delivery, and opportunities to reduce duplication.
The office must ensure projects do not interfere with the Corps of Engineers’ navigation responsibilities or undermine existing disaster risk‑reduction infrastructure. The Program Director must publish the action plan, provide public comment opportunities, update goals and the plan at least every five years, and report annually to Congress on progress, funds transferred, grants awarded, and specific projects carried out.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Program Director must develop measurable, reportable actionable goals within 1 year and an action plan implementing them within 2 years of enactment.
The Program Director may make grants or enter into agreements with a broad set of non‑Federal entities, including States, Tribes, local governments, nonprofits, and institutions of higher education.
Project selection criteria explicitly require equitable distribution across the basin and emphasize projects that produce strategic, measurable environmental outcomes tied to the action plan.
The statute prioritizes nature‑based and non‑structural approaches and specifically authorizes removing or modifying culverts, levees, and dams to restore ecological function.
The office must review and update the actionable goals and action plan at least once every 5 years and publish annual reports describing progress, funds transferred, grants awarded, projects, and interagency agreements.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ohio River National Program Office and Program Director
Creates a dedicated EPA office to run the basin program and requires the Administrator to appoint a Program Director with basin‑specific technical and management experience. The Director coordinates EPA actions, develops program materials, posts public information, and leads Tribal engagement. Practically, that centralizes program leadership inside EPA and gives one official the responsibility to reconcile competing agency priorities and stakeholder views.
Advisory council composition and role
Directs the Director to establish an advisory council made up of State representatives for each Ohio River State, representatives for the lower/middle/upper basin segments, Tribal Governments in the basin, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. The council is the statutorily required venue for cross‑jurisdictional coordination and is consulted on goals, the action plan, and project selection — giving States and Tribes a formal seat at the table rather than relying solely on existing informal partnerships.
Program scope, allowable activities, and grant authority
Defines the program’s mission to deliver systemic, large‑scale restoration and lists eligible activities (water quality, resilience, habitat, invasive species, toxic remediation, monitoring, outreach, and public access). The Director may fund Federal actions or competitively grant to non‑Federal entities, widening participation beyond traditional EPA grantees. This clause shifts implementation tools toward grants and interagency agreements rather than prescribing a single delivery model.
Prioritization, compatibility, and selection principles
Requires prioritizing natural infrastructure and restoration of natural processes and allows structural removals or modifications when appropriate. It also mandates that projects be compatible with Corps navigation and existing disaster risk‑reduction infrastructure. Selection criteria require equitable geographic distribution, measurable outcomes aligned with the action plan, prompt implementability, and leveraging of resources — creating a balance between fairness, metric‑driven outcomes, and operational feasibility.
Actionable goals, action plan, public engagement, and updates
Requires the Director to set measurable goals within one year and an action plan within two years, catalog existing programs and commissions that affect the basin, propose a comprehensive approach leveraging existing programs, and identify specific multi‑year objectives with commitments and monitoring plans. The Director must solicit advisory council input and public comment and update goals and the action plan at least every five years — establishing a recurring planning cycle to guide funding and projects.
Reporting, funding transfers, interagency agreements, and budget treatment
Directs annual reporting to Congress and the public on implementation progress, coordination, transfers, grants, projects, and agreements. The Administrator may transfer program funds to other Federal agencies with the receiving head’s concurrence or enter interagency agreements to execute activities. The bill also requires EPA to include the program as a separate budget line in its annual submission to Congress — institutionalizing visibility into program funding requests and transfers.
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
- State and local governments in the Ohio River Basin — gain a coordinated federal partner, access to grants and interagency funds for basin‑scale projects, and a formal advisory role in setting regional priorities.
- Tribal Governments in the basin — receive statutory recognition in the advisory council, mandated Tribal engagement through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and an explicit consultation pathway to influence goals and projects.
- Conservation organizations and restoration practitioners — gain a new, sizable federal grant source and a programmatic framework prioritizing nature‑based solutions and large‑scale projects that match their expertise.
- Communities vulnerable to flooding and water‑quality issues — stand to receive projects focused on natural infrastructure and resilience improvements, which can reduce risk and deliver co‑benefits like recreation and habitat restoration.
- Researchers and monitoring networks — benefit from statutory emphasis on data collection, monitoring, and evaluation tied to measurable goals and reporting, which can fund baseline studies and long‑term assessments.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental Protection Agency — must house and staff the new Program Office, administer grants and transfers, and maintain reporting and public engagement; those administrative costs will pressure EPA budgets absent sufficient appropriations.
- Other Federal agencies that accept transferred funds or enter interagency agreements — will need to match program objectives to their missions and allocate staff and project funds, particularly agencies like the Corps, NOAA, and USFWS.
- Congressional appropriations — Congress must approve recurring appropriations to support grants and transfers; enactment shifts budgetary demand toward a multi‑state restoration program that competes with other priorities.
- Local governments and non‑Federal grantees — though eligible for grants, they may still bear planning, maintenance, or matching costs (where not covered), and must meet the program’s reporting and outcome measurement requirements.
- Navigation and infrastructure operators (including the Corps) — may face new constraints or additional coordination costs when restoration projects propose modifications to levees, dams, or other structures that affect navigation or flood control.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma: the statute pushes for ambitious, large‑scale ecological restoration and equitable geographic distribution of benefits, which favors nature‑based, often disruptive actions, while simultaneously obligating compatibility with navigation and disaster‑reduction infrastructure and expecting timely, measurable outcomes — a set of objectives that can pull projects in opposite directions and require trade‑offs among ecological gains, economic activity, and infrastructure reliability.
The statute creates a centralized federal vehicle for basin‑scale restoration but leaves several implementation details unresolved. The bill authorizes multi‑year funding and permits transfers to other agencies, yet it relies on interagency concurrence and agreements rather than spelling out roles, timelines, or long‑term maintenance responsibilities for constructed or restored infrastructure.
That raises questions about who pays for post‑project operations and liability where restoration alters flood or navigation regimes.
Measurement and equity requirements are prominent, but the bill does not define standardized metrics or require independent evaluation protocols, which could produce inconsistent reporting across projects and jurisdictions. The mandate to ensure compatibility with Corps navigation and disaster risk infrastructure creates a procedural guardrail, yet it also creates a substantive tension: projects that best restore ecological function (e.g., dam removals) may conflict with navigation or flood control interests, producing potential delays, negotiated compromises, or legal disputes.
Finally, Tribal engagement is required and BIA involvement is specified, but the text does not commit funding specifically for Tribal capacity building, nor does it set procedures for resolving disagreements between Tribal priorities and State or regional plans.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.