Regional Ocean Partnerships Reauthorization Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 6, 2026
Bottom line
This bill extends and modifies the federal authorization and funding for Regional Ocean Partnerships, while also imposing new restrictions on their activities related to regulatory development.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROPs) by amending the James M. Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023. It extends the authorization of appropriations through fiscal year 2031 with increased funding levels, and importantly, adds a new limitation prohibiting ROPs from using federal funds to develop regulatory proposals, model regulations, or compliance programs. The bill also includes several technical corrections and minor substantive changes to the existing ROP framework.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this reauthorization ensures continued federal support for crucial regional efforts in ocean and Great Lakes management, promoting collaboration among coastal states and stakeholders for environmental protection and sustainable resource use. The increased funding reflects growing needs and inflation, while the new limitation clarifies the role of ROPs, preventing them from overstepping into regulatory development and keeping them focused on coordination and research.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that the new funding limitation unduly restricts the ability of Regional Ocean Partnerships to develop comprehensive solutions to complex marine issues, potentially hindering their effectiveness in addressing emerging challenges that may require policy recommendations. Some may also question the specific funding levels or the necessity of reauthorization if the existing framework is deemed sufficient.
The bill is very short and can be read quickly, allowing ample time for stakeholders to understand its provisions before any legislative action.
Section 2(6)
Extension of Authorization of Appropriations and Increased Funding
This provision strikes previous fiscal year appropriations and replaces them with new, higher amounts for fiscal years 2028 through 2031. Specifically, it authorizes $10,630,812 for FY2028, increasing annually to $10,975,462 for FY2031. It also updates the period for which these funds are authorized from '2023 through 2027' to '2026 through 2031,' ensuring continued financial support for the partnerships.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this increased and extended funding is essential to allow ROPs to continue their vital work in coordinating ocean and Great Lakes management, addressing environmental challenges, and supporting coastal economies. The new amounts reflect inflation and the growing scope of their responsibilities.
Critics contend
Some might argue that the specific funding levels are either too high or too low, or that federal funding for these partnerships should be re-evaluated against other national priorities.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies in balancing the need for consistent, adequate funding for regional environmental initiatives with broader federal budget constraints and priorities.
Section 2(6)(C)
Prohibition on Regulatory Development by Partnerships
This new subsection explicitly states that no amounts made available under this authorization may be used by any Regional Ocean Partnership (including Regional Coastal Partnerships or Regional Great Lakes Partnerships) to develop any regulatory proposal, model regulation, or compliance program. This places a clear boundary on the types of activities these federally funded partnerships can undertake.
Section 2(1) through (5)
Technical Corrections and Clarifications
This section makes several minor amendments to the existing law. These include correcting a capitalization error ('Coastal state' to 'coastal state'), inserting 'or enforcement' after 'regulatory' in a paragraph describing ROP functions, correcting 'Mexico' to 'America' in a geographic context, striking 'Vermont' from a list of states (implying Vermont is not considered a coastal state for these purposes), and striking 'natural and human-induced' from a description of threats. It also clarifies reporting requirements for ROPs.
Amends subsection (b)(3)(B) of the existing law by striking 'Vermont,' from a list of states. This effectively removes Vermont from being considered a 'coastal state' for the purposes of Regional Ocean Partnerships under this specific section of the law.
Section 2(2)(B)(ii)
Why it matters:This is likely a technical correction to align the definition of 'coastal state' within the context of this specific act, as Vermont is a Great Lakes state but not traditionally a 'coastal' state in the ocean sense. It is standard legislative practice to correct such lists for accuracy.
Case for: This correction clarifies the geographic scope of the ROPs and ensures resources are directed to states that fit the intended definition of 'coastal' for ocean partnerships, improving precision in the statute.
Case against: While Vermont is not an ocean-coastal state, it is a Great Lakes state. If the original intent was to include Great Lakes states in a broader 'coastal' definition for ROPs, its removal might be seen as narrowing the scope. However, the bill explicitly mentions 'Regional Great Lakes Partnership' in the new funding limitation, suggesting Great Lakes states are still covered under the broader ROP framework.
Estimated impact: Minor, clarifying the scope of the program for one state without fundamentally altering the overall Great Lakes partnership framework.