H.R. 6076, the Save Our Seas 2.0 Marine Debris Infrastructure Programs Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes existing Environmental Protection Agency programs tied to plastic waste and marine debris under the Save Our Seas 2.0 framework, extending their authorization through 2030 and making a targeted drafting correction. The measure is narrowly focused on continuity rather than expansion, and it does not create new programs or increase funding commitments.
The bill’s primary impact is procedural: it preserves current EPA authorities and planning horizons so states, municipalities, and grantees can continue ongoing debris reduction and infrastructure projects. Because it substitutes a 2025 horizon with 2030 and corrects a textual issue, the practical effect is stability for program implementation rather than new policy levers.
At a Glance
What It Does
Section 2 amends the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act by (1) inserting 'in' after 'described' in Section 302(g) paragraphs (1) and (2), and (2) replacing the year '2025' with '2030' in those paragraphs. The changes extend the authorization window for EPA’s plastic-waste and marine-debris programs through 2030.
Who It Affects
EPA program offices administering Save Our Seas 2.0 authorities; state environmental agencies that manage EPA grants for debris infrastructure; municipalities and local jurisdictions implementing marine-debris projects under these authorities.
Why It Matters
This preserves program continuity and project pipelines through 2030, aiding planning and implementation for debris capture, recycling, and infrastructure while avoiding a lapse in federal authority.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
This bill is a targeted reauthorization. It keeps intact the EPA’s existing programs that address plastic waste and marine debris under the Save Our Seas 2.0 framework, but extends their authorization through 2030 rather than 2025.
Along with the extension, it fixes a drafting issue in section 302(g) by clarifying the wording in two paragraphs. There are no new authorities, no new funding levels, and no added mandates—the purpose is to ensure continuity for ongoing programs and for the entities that rely on them.
Practically, the extension supports ongoing debris infrastructure projects, grant programs, and interagency coordination without introducing policy expansions. States, municipalities, and grant recipients can plan against a longer horizon, which can improve project pipelines and contracting cycles.
The drafting correction reduces potential ambiguities that could affect implementation or oversight of the existing authorities.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 302(g) is amended to insert 'in' after 'described' in paragraphs (1) and (2).
Expiration is extended from 2025 to 2030 for the affected authorities.
The amendments apply to the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act's plastic-waste and marine-debris programs.
No new programs or funding are created; the bill focuses on extension and clarity.
H.R. 6076 is a reauthorization measure introduced in the 119th Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short Title
This section provides the official citation for the act, naming it the Save Our Seas 2.0 Marine Debris Infrastructure Programs Reauthorization Act. The short title is for reference in subsequent law and in policy discussions.
Reauthorization of EPA Programs to Combat Plastic Waste
Section 2 amends Section 302(g) of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act. It (a) inserts the word 'in' after 'described' in both paragraphs (1) and (2) to correct the statutory language, and (b) strikes the year '2025' and inserts '2030' in those same paragraphs. The net effect is to extend the authorization window for EPA-administered plastic-waste and marine-debris programs through 2030, maintaining current authorities without creating new programs or funding.
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
- EPA program offices responsible for marine debris and plastic-waste programs gain continuity in authority and grant administration.
- State environmental agencies that administer EPA grants for debris infrastructure benefit from a stable planning horizon and ongoing funding pipelines.
- Coastal municipalities and port authorities relying on EPA-supported debris infrastructure projects benefit from predictable program lifetimes and procurement schedules.
- Waste management and recycling infrastructure contractors working on EPA-funded debris projects gain clarity on project timelines.
- Coastal communities that rely on cleanup and infrastructure grants see steadier access to federal support for marine-debris initiatives.
Who Bears the Cost
- EPA program offices incur ongoing administrative costs to administer the extended authorities and any associated reporting requirements.
- State environmental agencies bear costs related to grant management, compliance, and reporting under extended authorizations.
- Municipalities and local jurisdictions may face continued administrative overhead to manage EPA grants and awarded contracts.
- Contractors and vendors delivering EPA-funded projects incur standard project costs and potential schedule adjustments tied to grant cycles.
- There are no explicit new funding levels in the bill; costs depend on future appropriations and program demand.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between guaranteeing uninterrupted federal support for marine debris infrastructure (which favors stability and planning) and the risk that extending authority without additional funding or policy enhancements may slow adaptation to evolving debris challenges and infrastructure needs.
The bill provides continuity rather than expansion, relying on existing program authorities under Save Our Seas 2.0. Because it does not authorize new funding or novel instruments, its real-world impact depends on future appropriations and the pace of project deployment.
The drafting correction to Section 302(g) reduces ambiguity in how the paragraphs apply, which can influence implementation and oversight. The narrow focus on a 2030 horizon may create longer planning cycles for infrastructure investments, but it also postpones any policy updates or funding increases those programs might otherwise require.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.