Ohio River Restoration Program Act
HB5966, the Ohio River Restoration Program Act, would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to create a new Ohio River Basin Restoration Program within the Environmental Protection Agency. The bill directs EPA to establish an Ohio River National Program Office led by a Program Director to coordinate federal restoration efforts, work with states, tribes, local governments, and other stakeholders, and develop measurable goals and a multi-year action plan for restoring the basin.
The program is designed to support large-scale projects that improve water quality and drinking water, reduce flood and storm risk, restore fish and wildlife habitat, control aquatic invasive species, remediate toxic substances, expand public access and recreation where compatible with habitat needs, and improve data collection, outreach, and citizen involvement. The bill emphasizes natural infrastructure, nature-based solutions, and non-structural approaches, including restoring hydrologic and ecological functions and modifying or removing structures such as culverts, levees, and dams when appropriate.
If enacted, the bill would add a new Section 127 to Title I of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and create a dedicated federal restoration framework for the Ohio River Basin. It would require EPA to produce actionable goals within one year, an action plan within two years, update those plans at least every five years, submit annual reports to Congress, and include the program as a separate budget line item. The bill also authorizes $350 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030 and allows EPA to transfer funds or enter interagency agreements with other federal agencies, as well as award grants or agreements to states, tribes, nonprofits, universities, local governments, and individuals.
The available context suggests broadly positive and bipartisan support for the concept of Ohio River Basin restoration, as reflected by the bill’s list of sponsors from multiple states and both parties. The measure appears to be framed as a collaborative environmental and infrastructure initiative rather than a partisan regulatory proposal. No committee transcript or vote record is available in the provided materials, so there is no recorded debate or formal vote history to indicate opposition or amendment activity.
The bill’s main potential points of contention are likely to be funding levels, federal administrative scope, and the balance between ecological restoration and existing navigation, flood-control, and infrastructure needs. The text anticipates these concerns by requiring compatibility with the Corps of Engineers’ navigation responsibilities and the integrity of disaster-risk-reduction infrastructure. Another possible area of debate is implementation authority—particularly EPA’s role in coordinating with multiple federal, state, tribal, and local entities and selecting projects across a large multi-state basin.