The bill directs the National Park Service to establish a systemwide program to reduce disposable plastic products in units of the National Park System and, where feasible, eliminate the sale and distribution of such items. It tasks regional directors, working with superintendents, to implement the program and incorporate it into agreements with concessioners and cooperating associations.
This is significant for park operations and the private partners who sell goods inside parks: it creates a structured process for replacing single‑use plastics with refill infrastructure and reusable options, mandates visitor education, and requires recurring evaluations of public response, safety, and collection rates — all of which carry operational and contractual consequences for the NPS and its vendors.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires the NPS Director to set up a plastics‑reduction program and gives regional directors authority to phase out sale and distribution of disposable plastic items 'to the greatest extent feasible.' It also directs development of visitor education plans and biannual program evaluations submitted to NPS leadership.
Who It Affects
Park superintendents and regional NPS offices, concessioners and cooperating associations that sell food and beverages, companies that supply single‑use plastics, and visitors who rely on bottled water and takeaway food service in parks.
Why It Matters
The measure creates an operational framework — not an immediate across‑the‑board ban — that could reshape concession contracts, require investment in bottle‑refill infrastructure and testing, and change visitor purchasing patterns in high‑traffic parks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes the Director of the National Park Service responsible for creating a program to reduce disposable plastic products across the National Park System, and it requires regional directors to carry out the program at parks in their regions. Implementation must coordinate with the superintendent of each unit and, when possible, be reflected in concessioner operating plans and cooperating association sales scopes.
Regional directors are instructed to eliminate sales of bottled water and other single‑use plastic items in park units 'to the greatest extent feasible' after weighing a non‑exhaustive list of operational and safety factors — including costs and benefits, infrastructure and testing needs for bottle‑refill stations, effects on concessioner revenue, visitor safety related to hydration, and input from the NPS Office of Public Health. Parks that already do not sell bottled water may continue that practice.The statute also requires each region to produce a proactive visitor education strategy explaining how water will be made available and why the program is in place, so visitors can arrive prepared.
Finally, regional directors must conduct and submit an evaluation at least once every two years covering public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior for disposable products, public‑safety incidents tied to dehydration or unsafe water sources, and disposable bottle collection rates.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Director must establish the plastics‑reduction program within 180 days of enactment.
Regional directors must eliminate sale of bottled water and other disposable plastic products 'to the greatest extent feasible' after considering a 13‑factor list (costs, waste reduction, refill‑station infrastructure and testing, contractual implications, visitor safety, public‑health input, signage feasibility, and more).
Parks that already do not sell bottled water before enactment may continue that practice at the superintendent's discretion.
Each region must develop a proactive visitor education strategy explaining water availability and program rationale, aimed at reducing surprise and encouraging visitors to bring reusable containers.
Regional directors must run and submit a biennial evaluation to the Director and Secretary covering public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior, public‑safety incidents related to drinking water, and disposable bottle collection rates.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act the informal name 'Reducing Waste in National Parks Act.' This is a formal label only; it does not impose any programmatic requirements but clarifies citation for implementing guidance and rulemaking.
Program establishment and delegation to regions
Requires the Director of the National Park Service to set up a program for reducing disposable plastic products and, when applicable, eliminating their sale and distribution. The provision imposes a one‑time deadline (180 days) for establishment and assigns primary implementation responsibility to regional directors, who must work with superintendents when operationalizing the program at individual park units.
Framework for eliminating sales and distribution
Directs regional directors to eliminate sales of bottled water and other disposable plastics 'to the greatest extent feasible' after considering specific factors. The list requires balancing operational costs, landfill/waste impacts, infrastructure and maintenance costs for refill stations (including public‑health testing), contractual implications with concessioners and leaseholders, revenue impacts, visitor safety, and input from concessioners and the NPS Office of Public Health. The language is discretionary and purposefully fact‑sensitive rather than imposing a per‑park mandate.
Visitor education and consistency across park units
Requires regions to create a proactive visitor education strategy so visitors understand water availability and the rationale for changes. It also directs implementation 'to the extent possible' in a consistent way across units within a region and to incorporate program requirements into concessioner operating plans and cooperating association sales scopes, which brings contract management and procurement processes into play.
Biennial evaluation and reporting
Mandates that regional directors evaluate the program at least once every two years, measuring public response, visitor satisfaction with water availability, buying behavior for disposable products, public‑safety incidents (dehydration or disease exposure from surface water), and disposable bottle collection rates, and then submit that report to the NPS Director and the Secretary of the Interior. This creates a recurring data collection and reporting obligation on regions.
Definitions
Defines key terms for the statute: 'Director' (NPS Director); 'disposable plastic products' (enumerates disposable plastic beverage bottles, film plastic carryout bags, plastic food ware including items marketed as compostable/biodegradable, and expanded polystyrene); 'program' (the reduction program created under subsection (a)); and 'regional director concerned' (regional director coordinating with the relevant superintendent). These definitions set the scope of regulated items and responsible actors.
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 — reducing single‑use plastics lowers ingestion and entanglement risks and decreases litter that harms habitats.
- Visitors who prefer refill and reusable options — improved refill infrastructure and clearer education can enhance visitor experience and reduce the need to buy single‑use items.
- Public health and waste management budgets — over time, parks may spend less on litter collection and waste disposal in high‑traffic areas if single‑use plastics decline.
- Manufacturers and vendors of refill stations and reusable containers — the program creates demand for refill infrastructure, bottle‑testing services, and BPA‑free reusable products.
Who Bears the Cost
- Concessioners and cooperating associations — will face inventory changes, potential revenue loss from bottled products, and contractual renegotiation or compliance costs tied to operating‑plan amendments.
- Regional NPS offices and superintendents — must fund or secure funding for installation, maintenance, utilities, and health testing of refill stations and run the biennial evaluations and education campaigns.
- Small suppliers of single‑use plastics — manufacturers and distributors of bottles, polystyrene products, and plastic foodware risk reduced sales in park channels.
- Visitors in remote units — may face increased responsibility to carry sufficient water or purchase more expensive reusable alternatives if on‑site options are limited during transition periods.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between environmental gains from reducing single‑use plastics and the operational, contractual, and safety burdens of doing so in recreational settings: reducing bottles improves parks and wildlife but can raise visitor safety and hydration concerns, impose upfront infrastructure and testing costs, and trigger complex changes to concession contracts — all without a clear funding or enforcement mechanism.
The statute balances an environmental objective with a degree of administrative discretion by instructing regions to eliminate disposable plastics 'to the greatest extent feasible' and by listing factors to weigh. That approach avoids a blunt, systemwide ban but creates ambiguity: 'feasible' will invite region‑by‑region variance and litigation risk from stakeholders who view the standard as either too permissive or too burdensome.
Measuring 'amount of waste eliminated' or 'disposable plastic bottle collection rates' requires consistent baseline data and funding for monitoring; without standardized metrics, comparisons across regions and meaningful evaluation will be difficult.
The bill pushes many operational consequences into existing concession and lease frameworks. Incorporating the program into concessioner operating plans raises practical questions about timing, contract modification clauses, revenue guarantees, and potential claims tied to leaseholder surrender of possessory interest.
Funding is another unresolved issue: the statute contemplates utilities, maintenance, and public‑health testing for refill stations but does not specify funding sources or whether the NPS may impose fees or require concessioner investment, creating an implementation gap that regions will need to close.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.