Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
The bill directs the National Park Service Director to create, within 180 days, a program to reduce (and where feasible eliminate) sale and distribution of disposable plastic products in National Park units. Regional directors must implement the program, consider enumerated operational and safety factors before eliminating bottled water and other plastics, run visitor education campaigns, seek consistent unit-wide application, and submit biennial evaluations to the Director and Secretary.
Environmental benefits versus economic burden on concessioners
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets an administrative directive for the National Park Service to create and implement a program to reduce disposable plastic products, identifies responsible officials, and enumerates factors and evaluation items to guide implementation.
The bill directs the National Park Service Director to create, within 180 days, a program to reduce (and where feasible eliminate) sale and distribution of disposable plastic products in National Park units.
Regional directors must implement the program, consider enumerated operational and safety factors before eliminating bottled water and other plastics, run visitor education campaigns, seek consistent unit-wide application, and submit biennial evaluations to the Director and Secretary.
The bill defines covered disposable plastics and requires regular assessment of public response, safety, and waste metrics.
Moderate chance: narrow, policy-focused and administratively plausible, but uncertain funding and industry/concession concerns reduce probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets an administrative directive for the National Park Service to create and implement a program to reduce disposable plastic products, identifies responsible officials, and enumerates factors and evaluation items to guide implementation. The bill balances centralized direction (program establishment deadline) with regional discretion (feasibility-based elimination) and includes procedural elements (visitor education, incorporation into agreements, biennial evaluations).
Environmental benefits versus economic burden on concessioners
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Environmental benefits versus economic burden on concessioners
Overall supportive: sees the bill as a practical federal step to reduce plastic pollution and protect park environments.
Appreciates built-in factors requiring safety and education, but wants guaranteed funding and equitable access for visitors.
Cautious but generally favorable: appreciates environmental goals and the law's flexibility.
Wants careful cost-benefit analysis, predictable implementation timelines, and attention to contractual and public-safety issues.
Skeptical: views the bill as federal micromanagement that could hurt concession businesses and visitor choice.
Opposed unless protections for commerce, local control, and public-safety exceptions are strong.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Moderate chance: narrow, policy-focused and administratively plausible, but uncertain funding and industry/concession concerns reduce probability.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Environmental benefits versus economic burden on concessioners
Moderate chance: narrow, policy-focused and administratively plausible, but uncertain funding and industry/concession concerns reduce proba…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly sets an administrative directive for the National Park Service to create and implement a program to reduce disposable plastic products, identifies responsible…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.