S-1982-116
Became Public Law No: 116-224.
Sponsored by Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
What it does
The Save Our Seas 2.0 Act would expand federal efforts to reduce plastic waste and marine debris through four main mechanisms: (1) creating a nonprofit Marine Debris Foundation and an innovation prize competition to spur new cleanup technologies; (2) directing the EPA to develop a national strategy for managing postconsumer materials and authorizing grants to states, tribes, and local governments to improve recycling and waste management infrastructure; (3) requiring multiple federal agencies to conduct studies on microplastics, derelict fishing gear, plastic use in infrastructure, and recycling markets; and (4) directing the State Department to engage foreign governments and international bodies on reducing land-based sources of ocean plastic pollution.
Who benefits
Coastal and waterfront communities exposed to marine debris; commercial and recreational fishermen whose gear and catch are affected by ocean plastic; municipal water utilities and drinking water consumers who face microplastic contamination; state and local governments that would receive EPA grants for recycling and waste management upgrades; Indian tribes with access to grant funding for waste reduction; environmental technology entrepreneurs eligible for the Genius Prize competition; and the broader public that uses ocean and waterway resources for recreation, food, and commerce.
Who is hurt
Plastics manufacturers and single-use plastic product producers who may face increased regulatory scrutiny and market pressure as the EPA studies and recommends ways to reduce new plastic waste and expand recycling mandates; waste management companies whose existing business models could be disrupted by new infrastructure standards; taxpayers who fund the increased appropriations, grant programs, foundation, and prize competition; and foreign governments and industries that could face U.S. diplomatic pressure to change their waste management practices.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that marine plastic pollution poses a measurable threat to ocean ecosystems, fisheries, and human health through microplastic contamination of food and drinking water, and that the federal government has a clear role in coordinating a national response. They contend the bill takes a practical, market-friendly approach by pairing grant funding for infrastructure with an innovation prize that rewards private-sector solutions rather than imposing top-down mandates. Supporters also argue that the studies and data-collection requirements fill critical knowledge gaps — particularly on microfibers and microplastics — that are necessary before more targeted regulation can be designed. Finally, they note that because plastic pollution is a global problem, the bill's international engagement provisions are essential: U.S. action alone cannot clean the oceans without cooperation from the countries that contribute the largest share of land-based plastic waste.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill is largely a collection of studies, reports, and grant authorizations that add bureaucratic layers without imposing enforceable limits on plastic production or pollution, meaning it may produce little measurable reduction in marine debris. They contend that the grant programs and foundation create new federal spending obligations without clear performance metrics or accountability mechanisms, raising concerns about cost-effectiveness. Critics also argue that directing the EPA to recommend ways to reduce plastic waste and expand recycling markets is a precursor to future regulations that could impose significant compliance costs on manufacturers and small businesses. Finally, some opponents argue that the international engagement provisions encroach on private industry's ability to compete globally, and that waste management is fundamentally a state and local responsibility that does not require a new layer of federal coordination and oversight.
Constitutional context
The bill rests primarily on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, Sec. 8), as marine debris affects interstate and international commerce, navigation, and fisheries. The Necessary and Proper Clause supports the creation of the Marine Debris Foundation and the prize competition as instruments of executing Commerce Clause powers. EPA grant conditions to states implicate the Spending Clause and the anti-commandeering doctrine (New York v. United States, Printz v. United States), though grants structured as voluntary are generally permissible. Post-Loper Bright (2024), any future EPA regulations developed from the bill's study mandates would face independent judicial review of agency statutory interpretation rather than deference. The major questions doctrine (West Virginia v. EPA, 2022) would require clear congressional authorization for any sweeping EPA rules on plastic production that might flow from the bill's study and recommendation provisions. Takings Clause concerns (Sackett v. EPA, 2023) could arise if future regulations restrict land use in connection with waterway debris management.
Checks and balances
The bill expands executive branch authority by directing EPA, NOAA, the State Department, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Transportation to develop strategies, conduct studies, issue grants, and engage in international diplomacy — all without requiring additional congressional approval for those actions. Congress retains oversight through mandatory reporting requirements directed back to Congress and through the appropriations process, as the grant and prize programs require authorized funding. The creation of the Marine Debris Foundation as a private nonprofit that accepts federal direction and funds introduces a quasi-public entity that operates outside standard federal procurement and administrative rules, which may reduce direct congressional and judicial oversight of how those funds are used.
Historical precedent
The original Save Our Seas Act (P.L. 115-265, 2018) reauthorized the Marine Debris Act and directed U.S. representatives to international bodies to address marine debris. The Marine Debris Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-449) first established NOAA's Marine Debris Program. The America COMPETES Act (2007) established a precedent for federal prize competitions to spur private innovation, later codified in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (2010), which authorized agencies broadly to conduct prize competitions.