PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.10603 / 119th Congress

Kent County Environmental Infrastructure Act

Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Official summary

No official summary is available in the imported record yet.

Who introduced it

Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3] · D–MI

Committees

  • Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

    2. Introduced in House

    3. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    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.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.10603 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.10603 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.10603 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.10603 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.

    View full prompt & sources

    Read the proposal in plain language

    AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 27, 2026

    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.

    What it would do

    The bill would add a $20 million provision for water and wastewater infrastructure in Kent County, Michigan, to an existing federal law. Covered work would include managing stormwater and protecting surface water resources. This is a proposed change; the supplied evidence does not establish enactment or availability of the money.

    Check the source
    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) Kent County, Michigan $20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Kent County, Michigan.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-09-24

    How it would work

    Section 2 would append a new numbered entry to section 219(f) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, specifying $20 million for infrastructure in Kent County. The entry identifies a location and eligible types of work rather than an individual project or named organization.

    Check the source
    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) Kent County, Michigan $20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Kent County, Michigan.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-09-24

    What the record shows

    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. It does not establish what happened after that snapshot.

    Check the source
    Source snapshot updated 2026-10-05T12:50:44Z. 2026-09-24: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2026-09-24: Introduced in House
    Official legislative record · 2026-10-05T12:50:44Z

    Riders & Targeted Benefits

    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.

    Riders

    Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.

    None identified in the reviewed text

    No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish the contents of other versions or accompanying materials.

    Earmarks

    Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.

    Findings to examine

    The text contains a geographically directed funding provision that warrants earmark scrutiny. This identifies a textual candidate, not confirmed formal earmark status or an actual appropriation.

    The proposed entry specifies $20 million for water and wastewater infrastructure in Kent County, Michigan. It directs the stated amount to a particular place without describing a competitive or formula allocation in the entry itself; the underlying program rules are not supplied.

    Check the source
    (599) Kent County, Michigan $20,000,000 for water and wastewater infrastructure, including stormwater management and surface water resource protection, in Kent County, Michigan.
    Official bill text · Introduced in House · 2026-09-24

    Other targeted benefits

    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, not other versions or accompanying materials.

    What this analysis cannot establish

    • The supplied bill is the complete introduced version, not evidence of enacted law. The dated actions snapshot does not establish later passage, enactment, or failure to advance.
    • The existing section 219(f) and surrounding statutory provisions are not reproduced. The bundle therefore does not establish the governing funding mechanism, administrative responsibilities, eligibility rules, cost-sharing requirements, or whether any money has been appropriated or spent.
    • The introduced text supplies no separate implementation date, expiration date, enforcement provisions, or exceptions. Requirements in the underlying law cannot be determined from this bundle.
    • No earmark disclosures, member requests, committee reports, or conference materials are supplied, so formal earmark status cannot be confirmed.

    Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 5, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI