The bill adds a new section to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create an Ohio River Basin Restoration Program aimed at systemic, large‑scale restoration and protection of the Ohio River and its tributaries. It directs the Environmental Protection Agency to host a dedicated Ohio River National Program Office, develop measurable goals and an action plan, and coordinate federal, state, Tribal, and local activities.
The measure matters because it centralizes planning and funding tools for a 15‑state basin that spans diverse jurisdictions and challenges — from water quality and toxic contamination to flood resilience and invasive species — and authorizes substantial funding that could shift how restoration projects are prioritized and implemented across the basin.
At a Glance
What It Does
Creates an Ohio River National Program Office inside EPA led by a Program Director appointed by the Administrator; requires development of measurable actionable goals within 1 year and an action plan within 2 years; authorizes grants to non‑Federal entities and allows interagency fund transfers. Projects must target water quality, habitat, flood resilience, invasive species, toxic remediation, and public access, and prioritize nature‑based approaches where practicable.
Who It Affects
EPA program staff, Federal agencies with basin responsibilities (Corps of Engineers, BIA, etc.), 15 states that intersect the basin, Tribal Governments within the basin, regional commissions like the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, nonprofit implementers, and local project sponsors seeking federal grants. Infrastructure and navigation managers will face compatibility considerations.
Why It Matters
It creates a single coordinating body and funding line for basinwide restoration, establishes selection criteria emphasizing measurable outcomes and geographic distribution, and gives EPA explicit authority to transfer funds to other agencies — changing how restoration projects are planned, funded, and evaluated across political boundaries.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The core of the bill is organizational and programmatic. It directs the EPA to host an Ohio River National Program Office and to appoint a Program Director with basin‑specific technical and management expertise.
That office’s job is to coordinate EPA activities affecting the basin, maintain public transparency (including a website), and lead consultation and engagement with Tribal Governments in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Program design and project delivery are handled through a two‑stage planning requirement. The Program Director must first set actionable, measurable goals within a year and then produce a multi‑year action plan within two years.
The action plan must map existing federal, state, Tribal, and regional programs that can be leveraged, recommend a comprehensive approach to systemic restoration, and identify specific objectives, roles, monitoring commitments, and timelines.Project criteria focus on measurable environmental outcomes and geographic distribution across the basin. The office can fund projects directly, make grants to non‑federal entities (states, tribes, nonprofits, universities, local governments), and transfer funds to other federal agencies with their concurrence.
Selection principles require projects to show expected measurable improvements to water quality or ecological condition, timely implementability, and opportunities for leveraging other resources.On methods, the bill explicitly prioritizes natural infrastructure, nature‑based and non‑structural solutions where practicable, while requiring compatibility with navigation maintenance and disaster‑risk reduction infrastructure. It also mandates regular public reporting to Congress and the public on the action plan, project awards, interagency agreements, and annual progress updates.
The Program Director must update goals and the action plan at least every five years and solicit advisory‑council and public input during development and updates.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Program Director must develop measurable actionable goals within 1 year and an action plan within 2 years of enactment.
The bill authorizes $350,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2027 through 2031 for the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program.
EPA may make grants to non‑Federal entities (states, Tribes, local governments, nonprofits, universities, or individuals) and may transfer funds to other federal agencies with their concurrence.
Projects selected must prioritize nature‑based and non‑structural approaches where practicable and be chosen using criteria that require measurable environmental outcomes and geographic distribution across the basin.
The advisory council must include representatives from each basin state, the lower/middle/upper basin regions, Tribal Governments in the basin, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, and the Program Director must consult that council when developing goals and the action plan.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Ohio River National Program Office and Program Director
Creates an Ohio River National Program Office within EPA and requires the Administrator to appoint a Program Director with basin management and technical expertise. Practically, this centralizes decision‑making authority inside EPA and creates a visible point of accountability for coordination, Tribal engagement, public transparency, and interagency agreements; the office becomes the grantmaker and program manager for the statute’s activities.
Advisory council composition and role
Requires the Program Director to establish an advisory council made up of federal entities and non‑federal stakeholders, including each basin state, representatives for lower/middle/upper basin regions, basin Tribal Governments, and the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission. The council is a required consultative body for goal‑setting and plan development, which institutionalizes multi‑jurisdictional input but leaves final authority with the Program Director and EPA.
Program scope, priorities, and allowable activities
Defines eligible project types (water quality, drinking water, flood resilience, habitat, invasive species control, toxic remediation, access/recreation, data and outreach) and requires preference for natural infrastructure and nature‑based solutions where practicable. This section sets the substantive boundaries of federal support and signals a strong preference for non‑structural measures while still allowing traditional projects when necessary.
Grant authority, fund use, and project selection criteria
Authorizes EPA to award grants or enter agreements with a wide range of non‑federal entities and to use program funds for planning, design, implementation, and construction. It also lays out selection principles emphasizing measurable outcomes, geographic distribution, implementability, economic co‑benefits, and leveraging. Administratively, EPA must operationalize scoring, monitoring, and reporting requirements that link awards to the action plan’s metrics.
Actionable goals, action plan, and update cycle
Requires a one‑year deadline for actionable goals and a two‑year deadline for a comprehensive action plan that inventories relevant programs, recommends a multi‑year approach, identifies objectives and responsible parties, and proposes monitoring and maintenance. The Program Director must review and update goals and the plan at least every five years and provide public notice and comment during development and updates, embedding a cyclical planning process into the program’s lifecycle.
Funding authorization, interagency transfers, and budget line item
Authorizes $350 million annually for FY2027–2031 and allows EPA to transfer funds to other federal agencies with concurrence or enter interagency agreements to advance program activities. It also requires EPA to include a separate budget line for the program in its annual Congressional budget submission, creating budgetary visibility but not appropriating funds — actual funding still requires future appropriations.
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
- Tribal Governments in the basin — receive formal consultation mechanisms, a seat at the advisory council, and prioritized engagement via the Program Office and BIA coordination, improving chances that Tribal priorities are reflected in projects and funding decisions.
- State and local governments in the basin — gain a single federal interlocutor and a source of grant funding for multi‑jurisdictional restoration and resilience projects that are difficult to fund piecemeal.
- Nonprofit conservation organizations and academic institutions — get clearer pathways to funding and to participate in project implementation, monitoring, and outreach through the grant authority and advisory council processes.
- Communities facing water quality, flood, or toxic exposure risks — stand to gain from projects targeting drinking water improvements, toxic remediation, and nature‑based flood resilience that produce measurable outcomes.
- Regional planning and river commissions (e.g., Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission) — benefit from federal recognition and an institutional role in coordinating basinwide strategies and leveraging existing regional plans.
Who Bears the Cost
- Environmental Protection Agency — must staff and run a new program office, produce reports and plans, administer grants, and manage interagency transfers with no guaranteed appropriations beyond authorization; administrative costs and oversight obligations will grow.
- Other federal agencies (Corps of Engineers, FEMA, BIA, USGS, etc.) — may receive transferred funds and be asked to implement projects consistent with the action plan, adding mission requirements and coordination burdens if they accept transfers or agreements.
- State, Tribal, and local sponsors — will need to prepare grant applications, align projects with the action plan’s measurable metrics, and likely contribute staff time (and possibly matching or maintenance commitments) to implement awards.
- Navigation and infrastructure managers (state ports, Corps navigation units) — may face constraints or additional review where nature‑based projects must be designed to remain compatible with navigation and structural disaster‑risk infrastructure, potentially requiring redesign or mitigation measures.
- Congressional appropriations committees — while authorization exists, Congress bears the fiscal choice to fund the program; oversight workload will increase to monitor interagency transfers and program outcomes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to direct substantial, measurable basinwide ecological restoration while preserving navigation and existing infrastructure functions and spreading benefits across 15 states and numerous Tribal nations; the central dilemma is allocating limited federal funds and management authority in a way that achieves big ecological gains without impairing navigation, imposing undue burdens on implementing agencies, or shortchanging localized community and Tribal priorities.
The bill sets up an ambitious, centralized planning and funding mechanism but leaves key operational choices to EPA guidance and future appropriations. Authorization of $350 million per year signals intent, but actual program scale depends on congressional appropriations and on EPA’s capacity to hire skilled staff and stand up grant procedures.
The provision allowing transfers to other federal agencies creates flexibility to use existing program capabilities, but it also risks uneven execution if agencies decline transfers or if interagency coordination is not tightly managed.
The statute prioritizes nature‑based and non‑structural solutions while also requiring projects be compatible with navigation and disaster‑risk infrastructure. That dual mandate can create practical tensions in river reaches where engineered infrastructure and commercial navigation are critical; reconciling ecological restoration with navigation safety may increase project complexity and cost.
Finally, Tribal consultation language is stronger than in some statutes, but successful engagement will hinge on resourcing and the Program Director’s willingness to cede decision influence to Tribal priorities rather than treating consultation as a formality.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.