SB3022 makes two textual edits to Section 302(g) of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (33 U.S.C. 4282(g)): it inserts a missing preposition in two subparagraphs and replaces the statutory expiration year “2025” with “2030.” The bill does not change program structure, create new grant authorities, or specify funding levels.
Why this matters: the amendment preserves statutory authorization for EPA programs addressing plastic and marine debris for an additional five years, maintaining eligibility and legal authority for grants, technical assistance, and related activities tied to that subsection. But it leaves appropriations, program priorities, and oversight unchanged — meaning practical continuity depends on future funding and EPA action, not this text change alone.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directly amends 33 U.S.C. 4282(g) by inserting the word “in” in two locations and updating the expiry date from 2025 to 2030. It is a narrow statutory reauthorization: language correction plus a five-year extension of the statutory term.
Who It Affects
EPA program managers, current and prospective grant applicants under Section 302(g) (for marine debris and plastic-waste infrastructure activities), and communities and organizations that rely on federal grants for cleanup and mitigation projects. Appropriations committees and federal budget planners are also affected because the authorization window the committees consider is extended.
Why It Matters
Extending the authorization removes an immediate statutory deadline that could have required program wind-down or fast-tracked legislative fixes. At the same time, because the bill contains no appropriation or programmatic reform, it offers legal continuity without guaranteeing money or new policy direction.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB3022 is mechanically small but practically useful: it targets one subsection of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act and makes two edits. First, it corrects grammar by inserting the preposition “in” after the word “described” in both paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Section 302(g).
Second, it replaces the year “2025” with “2030,” moving the statutory sunset or authorization horizon for the programs described in those paragraphs forward by five years.
The immediate legal effect is to keep the statutory authority underlying the EPA’s marine-debris and related plastic-waste infrastructure programs in force for an additional five years. That means entities that receive or apply for grants under the cited subsection continue to operate against an active statutory authorization rather than a lapsed or soon-to-lapse authority.
The bill does not add new grant types, change eligibility criteria, or alter oversight or reporting requirements included elsewhere in the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act.Importantly, authorization and appropriation are distinct. SB3022 does not authorize specific dollar amounts and does not obligate Congress to appropriate funds.
The practical continuation of projects, contracts, and assistance financed by EPA will still depend on annual appropriations and EPA program decisions. Finally, because the bill makes only a textual correction and a date change, its implementation burden on EPA is minimal — largely administrative and clerical — but the policy consequences hinge on subsequent appropriation and program management choices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends Section 302(g) of the Save Our Seas 2.0 Act (codified at 33 U.S.C. 4282(g)).
It inserts the word “in” after “described” in both paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection, correcting marginal wording.
It replaces the statutory expiration year “2025” with “2030,” extending the authorization period by five years.
SB3022 contains no funding amounts, no new grant authorities, and makes no changes to eligibility or program structure.
The amendment preserves legal authorization for EPA marine-debris activities but does not itself create an appropriation or mandate how funds are allocated.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act's public name: "Save Our Seas 2.0 Marine Debris Infrastructure Programs Reauthorization Act." This is purely formal but frames the statute as a reauthorization vehicle for the targeted EPA programs.
Amendment to 33 U.S.C. 4282(g): wording correction and date extension
Makes the operative changes: (1) inserts the preposition "in" after "described" in paragraphs (1) and (2) of Section 302(g), and (2) substitutes "2030" for "2025." Practically, the change clarifies statutory wording and extends the authorization window for the specific programs enumerated in that subsection. This is a textual, not a programmatic, amendment — it does not alter substantive grant authorities or compliance requirements found elsewhere in the statute.
Formal enactment language
Includes the standard enactment language that integrates the amendment into federal law. No additional regulatory instructions or transitional provisions are included, so agencies follow normal rulemaking and grant administration practices under the updated statutory text.
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
- Current EPA grant recipients under Section 302(g): they gain statutory certainty that the enabling authority remains in effect through 2030, reducing legal risk for ongoing multi-year projects.
- Coastal and Great Lakes municipalities and nonprofit cleanup groups: maintaining authorization helps preserve eligibility for future grant cycles that support debris removal and related infrastructure planning.
- Private contractors and waste-management firms that perform cleanup and recycling work: continued authorization preserves the potential pipeline of federally funded projects they bid on.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal budget/appropriations process: while authorization is extended, any fiscal cost depends on future appropriations committees deciding to allocate funds within the extended window.
- EPA program offices: administrative steps — updating statutory references, grant solicitations, and internal guidance — fall to EPA to implement the textual change.
- Congressional oversight bodies and auditors: keeping programs running without legislative reform may increase scrutiny over whether existing authorities and spending meet current needs, requiring more oversight activity without additional resources.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill resolves immediate statutory expiry but not the underlying question of resources and reform: it favors short-term legal continuity over confronting whether the programs need more funding, different priorities, or structural changes to scale the national response to plastic and marine debris.
The bill’s principal tension is between procedural continuity and substantive policy change. On one hand, extending the statutory authorization to 2030 avoids a looming expiration that could interrupt ongoing grant cycles or force short-term legislative fixes.
On the other hand, the amendment leaves intact whatever structural limitations, funding levels, or eligibility rules are embedded elsewhere in law or in EPA practice — none of which the bill addresses. That means the extension buys time but not necessarily capacity or effectiveness.
Operationally, the insertion of a single preposition is likely clerical, but small textual edits can sometimes matter in statutory interpretation; this change appears intended to fix grammar rather than shift meaning. More materially, because SB3022 contains no appropriation language and does not amend funding ceilings or allocations, the real-world impact depends entirely on subsequent budget decisions.
Agencies, grantees, and appropriators will need to coordinate so that the extended authorization translates into actual program continuity rather than a nominal extension with no funding. Finally, the five-year extension could defer tougher policy choices — for example, whether to redesign grant priorities, increase oversight, or integrate new recycling technologies — leaving those debates for a later Congress.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.