S-93-119
Held at the desk.
Sponsored by Dan Sullivan (R-AK)
What it does
This bill would amend the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998 to restructure the interagency task force, expand its scope to cover freshwater as well as marine and coastal systems, and require a recurring "Action Strategy" report to Congress every 5 years. It would create new EPA research responsibilities on freshwater harmful algal blooms, establish a national observing network and an incubator program for new mitigation technologies, add consultation requirements with tribes and affected communities, and authorize $19.5 million annually to NOAA and $8 million annually to EPA for fiscal years 2026-2030, plus $2 million annually for a related drought/hypoxia event-assessment program.
Who benefits
Coastal and Great Lakes communities affected by algal blooms and hypoxia; commercial and subsistence fisheries; recreational and tourism industries in affected waters; Indian tribes, Tribal organizations, and Native Hawaiian organizations who gain formal consultation roles; rural, island, and low-income communities that may receive prioritized incubator funding; NOAA and EPA researchers and grant recipients; academic institutions and research universities partnering on federally funded studies.
Who is hurt
No group is significantly burdened by this bill; it is primarily a research and coordination reauthorization. Federal taxpayers bear the modest cost of the roughly $29.5 million in annual authorized appropriations, and agencies with overlapping missions (e.g., NOAA and EPA) must devote staff time to new coordination and reporting requirements, which could divert some resources from other priorities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue harmful algal blooms and hypoxia cause billions of dollars in damage annually to fisheries, tourism, and drinking water systems, and that this bill closes a gap by extending federal research beyond coastal waters to freshwater lakes and rivers where blooms increasingly occur. They contend the bill improves coordination among NOAA, EPA, and other agencies, mandates tribal and community consultation, and funds practical tools like toxin testing in rural areas, addressing documented monitoring gaps identified by federal scientists.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue the bill expands the scope and duplicative bureaucracy of an already multi-agency program without clear evidence that broadening freshwater jurisdiction into EPA's mandate will outperform existing state and local monitoring efforts. They contend the roughly $29.5 million in new annual authorizations adds to federal spending during a period of fiscal constraint, and that some provisions, like new incubator and database programs, could have been achieved through existing agency authority without additional statutory layers.
Constitutional context
This bill authorizes federal research, monitoring, and grant programs under Congress's spending power (Art. I, §8, cl. 1) and its authority to regulate matters affecting interstate and navigable waters under the Commerce Clause; it does not impose new regulatory mandates on private parties, so it does not implicate the major questions doctrine or takings concerns raised in recent environmental cases like West Virginia v. EPA or Cedar Point Nursery.
Checks and balances
Congress directs and funds executive agencies (NOAA and EPA) to conduct research and report back, retaining oversight through the 5-year Action Strategy reporting requirement and the appropriations process, with no expansion of independent agency regulatory authority.
Historical precedent
This bill reauthorizes and amends the original Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, which has been periodically reauthorized and amended, most notably by the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Amendments Act of 2004 and subsequent reauthorization acts.