Ohio River Restoration Program Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Fetterman, John [D-PA]
- Committees
- Environment and Public Works Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 5, 2026
Bottom line
The bill creates a new, dedicated federal program with significant funding to restore and protect the Ohio River Basin's water quality and ecological health.
What it actually does
This bill establishes the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry out projects and activities that advance systemic, large-scale restoration and protection of the Ohio River Basin. It creates an Ohio River National Program Office to oversee the program, develop actionable goals and an action plan, and coordinate efforts across 15 states and Tribal Governments. The bill authorizes $350 million annually for five fiscal years (2027-2031) to fund these initiatives.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the Ohio River Basin, a vital ecological and economic resource, faces significant environmental challenges requiring a comprehensive, coordinated federal response. They contend this program will improve water quality for millions, enhance community resilience to floods, protect critical fish and wildlife habitats, and address pollution and invasive species through a strategic, collaborative approach.
Opponents contend
No explicit opposition to this specific bill is publicly documented. However, potential critics of similar large-scale federal programs often raise concerns about the overall cost to taxpayers, the potential for federal overreach into state and local environmental management, or questions regarding the efficiency and effectiveness of broad federal initiatives compared to localized efforts.
The bill is concise and clearly structured, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2, subsection (b)(1)
Establishment of Ohio River National Program Office
This provision directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish an Ohio River National Program Office within the agency. This office will be responsible for carrying out the newly created Ohio River Basin Restoration Program, serving as its central administrative and coordinating body.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that a dedicated office within the EPA is crucial for effective coordination of federal actions, ensuring consistent leadership, and providing a clear point of accountability for the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against the establishment of a program office itself, though some might argue against the expansion of federal bureaucracy if they oppose the program's overall scope or cost.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff involves balancing the need for centralized coordination with potential concerns about creating new federal administrative structures.
Section 2, subsection (b)(3)
Functions of the Program Director
This section outlines the duties of the Program Director, who heads the Ohio River National Program Office. These duties include coordinating EPA actions, developing and updating the program's action plan, making information publicly available, and facilitating engagement and consultation with Tribal Governments and organizations throughout the program's development.
Section 2, subsection (c)(1)
Establishment of Ohio River Basin Restoration Program
This provision formally establishes the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program within the EPA. Its purpose is to implement projects and activities that achieve systemic, large-scale restoration and protection of the Ohio River Basin, with a focus on measurable improvements to water quality and the ecological condition of the Ohio River and its tributaries.
Section 2, subsection (c)(2)
Program Goals for Projects and Activities
This section outlines eight specific goals that any project or activity carried out under the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program must be designed to accomplish. These goals include improving water quality and drinking water, increasing community resilience to flood and storm risk, protecting fish and wildlife habitat, preventing invasive species, remediating toxic substances, improving public access and recreation, collecting data, and enhancing public outreach and education.
Section 2, subsection (c)(5)
Project and Activity Selection Criteria and Compatibility
This provision establishes the principles and criteria the Program Director, in collaboration with the advisory council, must use to select projects. Criteria include achieving measurable improvements, strategic outcomes, economic benefits, feasibility, and reducing duplication. Crucially, it also mandates that selected projects must be compatible with the ability of the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation and other federal projects, and with the structural integrity of federal, state, local, or Tribal disaster risk reduction infrastructure.
Section 2, subsection (d)
Actionable Goals and Action Plan Development
This section requires the Program Director to develop measurable and reportable 'actionable goals' for the program within one year of enactment, including criteria for measuring success. Within two years, an 'action plan' must be developed to advance these goals, detailing existing programs, recommendations for a comprehensive approach, a multi-year plan with objectives, and a monitoring plan. Both the goals and plan must be updated every five years with public and advisory council consultation.
Section 2, subsection (e)(1)
Authorization of Appropriations
This provision authorizes the appropriation of $350,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2027 through 2031 to carry out the Ohio River Basin Restoration Program. This establishes the maximum amount of federal funding that Congress can allocate to the program annually for these five years.
The definition of 'Ohio River State' includes 15 states: Ohio, Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, New York, Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina. This is a very broad definition, encompassing states not typically considered 'Ohio River States' in their entirety, but rather those containing any portion of the Ohio River watershed.
Section 2, subsection (a)(4)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms upfront, but the expansive nature of this particular definition could be easily overlooked.
Case for: Proponents would argue that a comprehensive approach to watershed restoration necessitates including all states that contribute to the Ohio River Basin's hydrology, ensuring no upstream or tributary impacts are neglected, regardless of the state's primary geographic association.
Case against: Critics might argue that such a broad definition could dilute focus and resources, potentially leading to less impactful projects in the core Ohio River corridor if funds are spread too thinly across a vast and diverse geographic area.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the potential geographic scope and number of eligible entities for program participation and funding.
The Program Director must ensure that projects and activities carried out under the program are compatible with (i) the ability of the Corps of Engineers to maintain navigation and other Federal projects in the Ohio River; and (ii) the structural integrity or effectiveness of Federal, State, local, or Tribal disaster risk reduction infrastructure.
Section 2, subsection (c)(5)(B)
Why it matters:This is a common legislative practice to ensure new environmental initiatives do not inadvertently undermine existing critical infrastructure or federal mandates, reflecting a necessary balancing act.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provision is essential to prevent conflicts between restoration efforts and vital economic activities (like navigation) or public safety measures (like flood control), ensuring a holistic and responsible approach to basin management.
Case against: Some environmental advocates might argue that this compatibility clause could limit the scope or ambition of certain restoration projects, particularly those that might require significant alterations to existing infrastructure or navigation channels, potentially prioritizing economic or safety concerns over ecological restoration.
Estimated impact: Ensures that billions of dollars in existing infrastructure and ongoing federal operations are not jeopardized by new restoration projects, potentially influencing the design and location of certain projects.