Ohio River Restoration Program Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/hr/5966

Last Updated: November 10, 2025

Ohio River Restoration Program Act

HR. 5966, 119th Congress — read as touching Construction & Engineering.

The sponsor

Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$72,754 raised

22 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Environmental Protection Agency" section, p. 461-463 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Invalid Date

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**HR 5966: Ohio River Restoration Program Act - A Billion-Dollar Boondoggle**

As a visionary entrepreneur and investor, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation and power consolidation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Ohio River Restoration Program Act aims to establish a federal program to restore and protect the Ohio River Basin. The primary objectives are to improve water quality, increase community resilience, protect fish and wildlife habitats, prevent aquatic invasive species, remediate toxic substances, and enhance public access and recreation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by establishing an Ohio River National Program Office within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The office will be headed by a Program Director who will coordinate actions with federal agencies, states, tribes, and non-federal entities. The program will develop and implement a restoration plan, provide grants, and facilitate engagement with tribal governments.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill affects various stakeholders, including:

1. **Federal Agencies:** EPA, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and other relevant federal agencies. 2. **States:** Ohio River States (15 states) will be involved in the advisory council and restoration efforts. 3. **Tribal Governments:** Tribal governments located in the Ohio River Basin will participate in the advisory council and receive grants. 4. **Non-Federal Entities:** Private companies, NGOs, and local organizations may partner with the program office or receive grants.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** From a wealth creation perspective, this bill presents both opportunities and threats:

1. **Grants and Funding:** The program will provide grants to states, tribes, and non-federal entities, which could lead to lucrative contracts for companies involved in restoration efforts. 2. **Regulatory Framework:** The bill strengthens the EPA's authority, potentially increasing regulatory hurdles for industries operating in the Ohio River Basin. 3. **Private Sector Opportunities:** Companies specializing in environmental remediation, water treatment, and infrastructure development may benefit from the program's focus on restoration and protection.

However, as a visionary entrepreneur, I must emphasize that this bill's bureaucratic nature and emphasis on government-led initiatives will likely stifle innovation and hinder private sector growth. The true potential of the Ohio River Basin can only be unlocked through deregulation, privatization, and the unleashing of market forces.

**Projection:** Based on my analysis, I estimate that the program's implementation will result in a minimum of $1 billion in grants and funding over the next five years. However, this figure could balloon to $5 billion or more if the program expands its scope and attracts additional federal and private sector investment.

In conclusion, while HR 5966 presents some opportunities for wealth creation, its bureaucratic nature and regulatory focus make it a less-than-ideal solution for unlocking the true potential of the Ohio River Basin. As a visionary entrepreneur, I would advocate for a more market-driven approach to restoration and protection

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$72,754

18 donors

PACs

Organizations

$3,454

Committees

Individuals

$69,300

No PAC contributions found

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

1 transaction

$3,300

LA CASITA CENTER

1 transaction

$154

No committee contributions found

CALOBRACE, BRADLEY

1 transaction

$6,600

HELM, NELSON

2 transactions

$6,600

SISCOVICK, JONATHAN

2 transactions

$6,600

BROCKMAN, EDWARD BRITT

2 transactions

$6,600

FRAZIER, SANDRA

2 transactions

$6,600

BROWN, CAMPBELL

1 transaction

$3,300

MEHROTRA, LOPA

1 transaction

$3,300

MEHROTRA, RISHABH

1 transaction

$3,300

ROTH, EVAN

1 transaction

$3,300

CHRISTENSEN, JOSH

1 transaction

$3,300

SISCOVICK, TALIA

1 transaction

$3,300

SCHUBERT, ALLEN

1 transaction

$3,300

DYKSTRA, DAN

1 transaction

$3,300

WILLOUGHBY, BLAKE

1 transaction

$3,300

HUTCHENS, EMMA

1 transaction

$3,300

VOYLES, JAMES

1 transaction

$3,300

Donor Network - Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 32 nodes and 22 connections (45 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $72,754

Top Donors - Rep. McGarvey, Morgan [D-KY-3]

Showing top 18 donors by contribution amount

2 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 helped.

+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.90
Section (c)(4)(A) authorizes funds to plan, design, implement, or construct projects and activities carried out by a relevant Federal agency or non-Federal entity, which directly benefits construction and engineering firms involved in restoration projects.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Environmental Protection Agency

Moderate

Vector: 63%

Pages: 461-463AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restoring and protecting the Ohio River Basin through water quality improvements, habitat restoration, and pollution remediation, which aligns with Project 2025's Office of Water goals of implementing the Clean Water Act and protecting aquatic ecosystems. However, the bill does not address the specific reforms emphasized in Project 2025, such as limiting guidance documents, adhering to statutory deadlines, or revising WOTUS and Section 401 rules to respect private property ri"

Key themes:Clean Water Act implementationwater quality improvementaquatic ecosystem protectionwatershed restoration

— 428 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Personnel, Budget, and Office Restructuring l Place a political appointee in Ann Arbor, Michigan, for the Office of Transportation and Air Quality (OTAQ, regulating mobile sources) and a political appointee in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, for the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS, regulating stationary sources) and give those appointees the requisite titles and authority to oversee the OTAQ and OAQPS staff. l Establish a political Chief of Staff in D.C. to manage the entire air office. l Pull the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program out of OTAQ; establish its own suboffice in D.C. (with status parallel to OTAQ and OAQPS) that is headed by a political appointee; and establish a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy to work together to establish RFS programs. l Require regional air offices to receive approval from OAR before moving forward with enforcement actions in order to ensure that enforcement is meeting the requirements established by regulations and is not going beyond them. OFFICE OF WATER (OW) OW is responsible for ensuring safe drinking water and restoring and main- taining oceans, watersheds, and their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, support economic and recreational activities, and provide healthy habitats for fish, plants, and wildlife. Its two main statutes include implementing the Clean Water Act (CWA)26 and Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).27 OW has generated a large number of expansive regulations that infringe on private property rights, most notably with the Waters of the U.S. program. Needed Reforms The overarching theme for reform is guidance on guidance. OW relies heav- ily on guidance documents that are outdated and that sometimes have been in a “deliberative” state for years. Additionally, there are significant issues surrounding OW’s holding up guidance as something more than simply guidance: as something akin to law in certain circumstances. The August 6, 2019, “Office of Water Policy for Draft Documents” memorandum28 should be strictly enforced to ensure transpar- ency as well as good governance by not letting guidance linger in draft form and by also ensuring that guidance documents are clearly just that: guidance. They do not have the effect of law and should not be treated by the office as if they did have any such effect. — 429 — Environmental Protection Agency As a matter of broad practice, OW should be complying with statutorily estab- lished deadlines in all situations with only minimal exceptions. In cases where statutory deadlines will not be met, senior management should be made aware of the delay and should have an opportunity to determine whether alternative courses should be taken. Depending on the outcome of regulations from the Biden Administration as well as intervention by the Supreme Court on both waters of the United States (WOTUS) and CWA Section 401,29 the repeal and reissuance of new regulations should be pursued. New Policies New regulations should include the following: l A WOTUS rule that makes clear what is and is not a “navigable water” and respects private property rights. Coordinate with Congress to develop legislation, if necessary, to codify the definition in Rapanos v. United States that “waters of the United States” can refer only to “relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water…as opposed to ordinarily dry channels through which water occasionally or intermittently flows.”30 l A rule that provides clarity and regulatory certainty regarding the CWA Section 401 water quality certification process to limit unnecessary delay for needed projects, including by establishing a discharge-only approach with a limited scope (from point sources into navigable waters), assessing only water quality factors that are consistent with specific CWA sections, and excluding speculative analysis regarding future potential harm. l A rule to ensure that CWA Section 30831 has a clear and enforced time limit. l A rule to clarify the standard for criminal negligence under CWA Sections 40232 and 404.33 l A rule to prohibit retroactive or preemptive permits under CWA Section 404. l A rule to promote and shape nutrient trading that utilizes a carrot-versus- stick approach when dealing with nutrient compliance. l A rule to update compensatory mitigation that imposes no new or additional requirements beyond current law. l A rule on updates necessary for the effective use of the CWA needs survey.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 66%

Pages: 473-475AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill creates a specific Ohio River restoration program with tribal engagement, whereas the Project 2025 EPA section focuses on internal agency reforms (elevating the American Indian Office, centralizing legal counsel, and repealing IRA environmental science grants); there is only tangential overlap in tribal involvement and EPA program coordination."

Key themes:tribal engagementEPA program coordinationwater quality restoration

— 440 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Repeal Inflation Reduction Act programs providing grants for environmental science activities. AMERICAN INDIAN OFFICE (AIO) AIO is a vital EPA function. It is mandated to carry out a 1992 act of Congress that administers the Indian Environmental General Assistance Program.51 Because of the sovereign-to-sovereign relationship between the U.S. government and fed- erally recognized sovereign Indian nations, this act’s purpose is to assist tribes in developing the capacity to manage their own tribal environmental protection programs and set them up to implement programs for the management of solid and hazardous waste. This office also is the chief office under which the EPA’s 1984 Indian Policy functions. Needed Reforms AIO should be significantly elevated as a stand-alone EPA Assistant Admin- istrator office. This would send a clear message to American Indians and Alaska Native Villages that the agency takes seriously the environmental issues plaguing Indian Country. While designated a “headquarters” office with direct reporting to the Administrator, its location should be in the American West, closer to most tribal nations. This could include Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Dallas, Texas; or Denver, Colorado. The state of Oklahoma is considered the tribal center of Amer- ica and is home to 39 federally recognized tribes, including the “Five Civilized Tribes.” The other two options are also close to numerous tribes and home to EPA regional offices. New Policies All EPA tribal grants and tribal matters should be run from this office as a one- stop-shop for all tribal affairs. Budget and Personnel AIO should be led by a politically appointed, Senate-confirmed Assistant Admin- istrator, ideally one with strong ties to a federally recognized tribe. He or she should have political deputies and staff to assist the political leadership in carrying out agency policies. Career EPA tribal staff are located throughout the nation in all regional offices but are paid mostly under the budget of the current Office of International and Tribal Affairs, which will be significantly restructured as international functions are reabsorbed into the appropriate media offices (for example, Air, Water, and Land and Emergency Management). Because of this, tribal staff should be fully under the authority of the new American Indian Office and its Assistant Admin- istrator, not the regional offices. — 441 — Environmental Protection Agency OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) OGC serves as the chief legal adviser to EPA’s policymaking officials. It also pro- vides legal support to regional actions and enforcement and compliance litigation. OGC lawyers represent the agency in court alongside the Department of Justice, typically defending agency actions. Needed Reforms and New Policies l Review EPA’s Environmental Justice and Title VI authority. Wherever possible, the Biden Administration is broadening EPA’s use and interpretation of Environmental Justice (EJ)52 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196453 beyond long-standing understandings of the legal limits of that authority. As a threshold matter, there is an opportunity to redefine EJ as a tool for the agency to prioritize environmental protection efforts and assistance to communities in proximity to pollution or with the greatest need for additional protection. Allocations of agency resources, increased EPA enforcement, and/or agency distribution of grants should be based on neutral constitutional principles. In 2023, the Supreme Court is expected to provide guidance on the constitutionality of race-based discrimination as it considers Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.54 Accordingly, the next Administration should pause and review all ongoing EJ and Title VI actions to ensure that they are consistent with any forthcoming SCOTUS decision. l Establish a policy of legally speaking with one voice. Some EPA offices (for example, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and the Offices of Regional Counsel) assert legal positions and interpretations of the law that conflict with an Administration’s interpretation as articulated by OGC with input from program offices. It is unacceptable for the agency to have inconsistent legal positions, particularly with respect to key interpretative issues. All attorneys with authority to represent EPA—not necessarily all attorneys—should therefore be housed in OGC. These offices include: 1. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA). OECA was established during the Clinton Administration. Enforcement attorneys tend to take legal positions to win cases or obtain settlements that may be inconsistent with those of OGC and program offices. OECA attorneys should be moved into OGC. Additionally, non-attorney program staff in OECA could be moved into their relevant program offices (for example, the Clean Air Act Enforcement Advisor could

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 65%

Pages: 473-475AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on establishing an Ohio River restoration program within EPA and includes tribal engagement, but it does not address the specific Project 2025 reforms to elevate and restructure the American Indian Office or centralize tribal grant administration."

Key themes:tribal engagementEPA program officeenvironmental restorationstakeholder advisory council

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 63%

Pages: 464-466AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on watershed restoration and water quality in the Ohio River Basin, while the Project 2025 EPA section emphasizes mine cleanup, lead remediation, RCRA reforms, chemical regulation streamlining, and organizational restructuring—topics not addressed in the bill."

Key themes:Environmental ProtectionWater QualityToxic Substances

— 432 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Expand and fully stand up the Office of Mountains, Deserts and Plains to support innovative approaches to the cleaning up of abandoned mines. l Develop and execute a 10-year cleanup plan to address lead at all existing cleanup sites that includes benchmarks and milestones that allow for congressional and public oversight of the schedule. RCRA. To streamline waste management, the following changes are needed in the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR): l Create an RCRA post-closure care permit that is tailored only to post- closure obligations. l Modify regulations that impede resource efficiency, recycling, and reuse by providing clearly that these materials are not waste. This can be done by promulgating a rule that provides an alternative pathway to hazardous waste regulation to allow the transport of material to legitimate recyclers or back to manufacturers to support the recycling and reuse of material. l Change the electronic manifest (e-manifest) regulations to a 100 percent electronic system and eliminate all paper manifests and manual filing and data input. This system should operate from a range of common handheld devices and could be expanded to accommodate solid waste and materials for reuse and recycling. l Reassign regulation and enforcement of air emission standards under the authority of RCRA Section 300437 to OAR and revise and modernize the regulations to comport and integrate with CAA rules. Risk Management Program. If a new Risk Management Program (RMP) rule is finalized by the Biden Administration, it should be revised to reflect the amend- ments finalized in 2019 to protect sensitive information. Personnel The following organizational changes could create resource efficiencies to focus on the highest-value opportunities: l Eliminate or consolidate the regional laboratories and allow OLEM to use EPA, other government, or private labs based on expertise and cost. — 433 — Environmental Protection Agency l Consolidate non-core functions (communications, economists, congressional relations, etc.) into one OLEM suboffice to allow the subject- matter offices to focus on the execution of field work. l Eliminate the Office of Emergency Management and reassign its functions. 1. Move the emergency management function (currently OEM) into Homeland Security under the Administrator’s office. 2. Incorporate removal authority (currently OEM) into OSRTI. 3. Retain the oversight and enforcement of the RMP program within OLEM. 4. Drop “Emergency Management” from OLEM’s name. Budget While the overall goal is certainly to reduce government scope and spending, OLEM’s programs present the best opportunity to use taxpayer dollars to execute EPA’s core mission of cleaning up contamination. OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION (OCSPP) OCSPP primarily oversees the regulation of new and existing chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)38 and the regulation of pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)39 and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).40 These activities are managed in two separate offices within OCSPP: the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT, chemicals) and Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP, pesticides). OCSPP is constantly pressured to ban the use of certain chemicals, typically based on fear as a result of mischaracterized or incomplete science. Needed Reforms and New Policy in OPPT (Chemicals) l Ensure that decision-making is risk-based rather than defaulting to precautionary, hazard-based approaches like the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). l Focus the scope of chemical evaluations on pathways of exposure that are not covered by other program offices and other environmental statutes, and eliminate scope creep to ensure that evaluations can be completed in a timely manner consistent with the statutory requirements.

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on restoring the Ohio River Basin through federal coordination and environmental protection, while the Project 2025 policy emphasizes state control over Alaska's natural resources, opposition to federal land acquisitions, and reversing conservation designations—representing opposing philosophies of federal versus state authority in natural resource management."

Key themes:natural resource managementfederal-state relationswater resourceswildlife habitatland use policy

— 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68 — 532 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Although the new President should vacate that order, DOI under a conservative President must take immediate action on the 30 by 30 plan by vacating a secre- tarial order issued by the Biden DOI69 that eliminated the Trump Administration’s requirement for the approval of state and local governments before federal acquisi- tion of private property with monies from the Land and Water Conservation Fund.70 National Monument Designations. As has every Democratic President before him beginning with Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden has abused his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Like the outrageous, unilateral withdrawals from public use of multiple use federal land under the Carter, Clinton, and Obama Administrations, Biden’s first national monument was one in Colorado—adopted over the objections of scores of local groups and at least one American Indian tribe.71 In the days before the 2024 election, Biden will likely designate more western monuments. Although President Trump courageously ordered a review of national mon- ument designations, the result of that review was insufficient in that only two national monuments in one state (Utah) were adjusted.72 Monuments in Maine and Oregon, for example, should have been adjusted downward given the finding of Secretary Ryan Zinke’s review that they were improperly designated. The new Administration’s review will permit a fresh look at past monument decrees and new ones by President Biden. Furthermore, the new Administration must vigorously defend the downward adjustments it makes to permit a ruling on a President’s authority to reduce the size of national monuments by the U.S. Supreme Court. Finally, the new Administration must seek repeal of the Antiquities Act of 1906, which permitted emergency action by a President long before the statutory author- ity existed for the protection of special federal lands, such as those with wild and scenic rivers, endangered specials, or other unique places. Moreover, in recent years, Congress has designated as national monuments those areas deserving of such congressional action. Oregon and California Lands Act. One national monument worthy of down- ward adjustment is in Oregon, where its designation and subsequent expansion interfere with the federal obligation to residents to harvest timber on its BLM lands. A federal district court ruled in 2019 that land subject to the Oregon and California (O&C) Grant Lands Act of 193773 was set aside by Congress to be har- vested for the benefit of the people of Oregon. Specifically, those federal lands are to be “managed…for permanent forest production” and its timber “sold, cut, and removed in conformity with the princip[le] of sustained yield.”74 As the district court concluded,75 beginning in 1990, the federal government erected a trifecta of illegal barriers to the accomplishment of the congressional mandate, beginning with a response to the listing of the northern spotted owl,76 continuing a decade later with the designation of the Cascade–Siskiyou National Monument,77 and concluding in 2017 with an expansion of that monument.78 In

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Rep. McGarvey, Morgan

Entrepreneurs with Disabilities Reporting Act of 2025

119/hr/1621

Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney Retention and Backlog Reduction Act

119/hr/2303

Ohio River Restoration Program Act