PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 5, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.10601 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.10601 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.10601 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.10601 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-24 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Muskegon County Environmental Infrastructure Act would add a $15 million provision to an existing federal water-resources law for water and wastewater infrastructure in Muskegon County, Michigan. Covered work would include managing stormwater and protecting surface water resources. The proposal directs the provision to that county but does not identify particular projects or recipients within it.
This Act may be cited as the Muskegon County Environmental Infrastructure Act.
(599) Muskegon County, Michigan $15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Muskegon County, Michigan.
Section 2 would add a new paragraph numbered 599 to section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992. Its $15 million infrastructure provision would include stormwater management and surface water protection without limiting eligible infrastructure to those two uses.
Section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4835; 113 Stat. 335; 138 Stat. 3115) is amended by adding at the end the following: (599) Muskegon County, Michigan $15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Muskegon County, Michigan.
The official-actions snapshot updated October 5, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on September 24, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T15:53:48Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-24. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what other versions or accompanying materials contain.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
Findings to examine
A geographically directed funding provision is identified for earmark scrutiny; formal earmark status is not established by the supplied evidence.
The proposal specifies $15 million for water and wastewater infrastructure in Muskegon County, Michigan. This names a particular place and purpose, making it an earmark candidate, although the text does not establish the allocation process or formal earmark classification.
(599) Muskegon County, Michigan $15,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Muskegon County, Michigan.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
Beyond the geographic funding provision reviewed under earmarks, no separate narrow exemption, carve-out or preferential treatment was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI