S-351-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Shelley Capito (R-WV)
What it does
The STEWARD Act of 2025 would direct the EPA to create a pilot grant program awarding funds to states, local governments, Indian tribes, and public-private partnerships to improve recycling accessibility, with a focus on underserved communities. It would also require the EPA to collect data on composting and recycling infrastructure, publish an inventory of U.S. recycling facilities every four years, and develop standardized national recycling rate metrics. The EPA may use this data to provide technical assistance to states and localities, and the Government Accountability Office would be required to publish a report on federal recycling-related activities.
Who benefits
Residents of underserved communities that currently lack recycling access. State, local, and tribal governments that would receive grants and technical assistance. Recycling and composting facility operators who may see increased material volumes. Environmental data researchers and policymakers who would gain standardized national metrics. Public-private partnerships in the waste management sector. Municipalities seeking to reduce landfill costs over time.
Who is hurt
Landfill operators and waste haulers whose business models depend on high volumes of non-diverted waste, and who could face reduced material flows if recycling rates increase. Taxpayers who would fund the grant program and EPA administrative costs, though the bill does not specify an appropriations amount. Private recycling companies that may face increased competition from publicly subsidized programs. Communities or jurisdictions not selected for pilot grants, who would bear federal costs without direct benefit.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. lacks consistent, reliable national data on recycling rates — a gap that makes it impossible to measure progress or target resources effectively. They contend that the pilot grant program directly addresses documented disparities in recycling access between affluent and underserved communities, and that standardized metrics would allow policymakers at all levels of government to make evidence-based decisions. They further argue that expanding recycling infrastructure reduces long-term municipal waste disposal costs and conserves natural resources.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that recycling program effectiveness varies widely by region and material type, and that federal grants and mandated data collection may impose administrative burdens on states and localities without delivering proportionate results. They contend that the bill creates new EPA reporting and metric-development obligations without specifying funding levels, risking unfunded mandates or underfunded implementation. Critics may also argue that recycling markets are driven by commodity prices and private-sector dynamics that federal data programs and pilot grants cannot meaningfully change.
Constitutional context
The bill's grant program and data collection requirements rest on Congress's Commerce Clause authority (Art. I, §8, cl. 3), which has long supported federal environmental programs. Because the bill delegates metric development and data collection to the EPA — rather than sweeping regulatory mandates — it is unlikely to raise major questions doctrine concerns under West Virginia v. EPA (2022) or face significant post-Loper Bright scrutiny, as the agency's role is largely informational and assistive rather than regulatory.
Checks and balances
The EPA gains new administrative authority to collect data, develop metrics, and award grants; Congress retains oversight through the required GAO report and any future appropriations process, and the Government Accountability Office provides an independent audit function.
Historical precedent
The Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, 1976) established earlier federal frameworks for waste management data collection and grants to states, making this bill an incremental expansion of an existing federal role rather than a novel intervention.