Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 25, 1999
American Wetland Restoration Act - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to declare that it is national policy to: (1) achieve, through regulatory means that take into account that 75 percent of the wetlands in the contiguous United States are privately owned and that private property rights should not be unreasonably infringed and through nonregulatory opportunities involving all levels of government and supported by private initiatives, the conservation, creation, and restoration of wetlands to increase the quantity and quality of, and meet the interim goal of no overall net loss for the remaining, wetlands resource base of the contiguous United States, taking into account the status and trends of such base in particular regions and areas; and (2) foster wetlands mitigation banking as a means to mitigate the unavoidable loss of wetlands by providing a regulatory framework for the use of mitigation banking, making appropriate use of existing, successful programs, taking into account regional variations in wetlands conditions, functions, and values. Directs the Secretary of the Army to issue a mitigation bank charter to a person who, with respect to the project or projects to be included in the scope of the charter, meets specified criteria. Requires an applicant to submit an application signed by a responsible official which includes, at a minimum, information on such criteria. Sets forth provisions regarding annual reports, decision deadlines, and other procedural matters. Authorizes a mitigation bank, upon receipt of its charter, to offer mitigation credits for sale, subject to specified requirements. Authorizes the Secretary to provide additional guidance on the size and use of the service area and to resolve interstate disagreements. Authorizes an approved mitigation bank to provide compensatory mitigation for activities requiring authorization under this Act or provide required injunctive relief in an enforcement action by the Secretary or the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. States a preference for in-kind compensation of wetlands impacts. Directs the Secretary and the Administrator to establish standards and criteria applicable to the use of on-site mitigation, in lieu fees, and other off-site mitigation as compensatory mitigation that are similar to those applicable to a mitigation bank. Sets forth reporting requirements. Allows a State that operates an approved program regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material into navigable waters to administer a wetland mitigation banking program in accordance with State procedures if such banking program is approved by the Administrator as part of the State's dredged or fill material program.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.1290 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.1290 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.1290 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.1290 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.