PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 12, 2011
Prohibits the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for five years, from: (1) requiring a publicly owned treatment works that contributes nitrogen loadings to the Great Bay Estuary to commence construction on any upgrade of a facility for the purpose of enforcing water quality standards or effluent limitations with regard to nitrogen under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act); or (2) establishing any water quality standard or effluent limitation with regard to nitrogen in the such Estuary under such Act.
Requires the Administrator to study eelgrass levels, and the causes of any loss of eelgrass habitat, in such Estuary.
Defines "Great Bay Estuary" to mean the estuarine zone that extends from the mouth of Portsmouth Harbor, in the vicinity of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, to the head-of-tide for the eight rivers (including the tributaries of those rivers) that flow into Great Bay, Little Bay, and the Piscataqua River.
People & committees
Rep. Guinta, Frank C. [R-NH-1] · R–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. 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.1480 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.1480 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.1480 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.1480 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.