PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2007
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2007 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise requirements for implementation and monitoring grants under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and for reporting on federally-funded projects under such Agreement.
Requires federal agencies that carry out activities within the watershed to: (1) participate in planning and restoration programs; and (2) ensure that such activities comply with the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the Federal Agencies Chesapeake Ecosystem Unified Plan.
Requires the President to submit as part of the annual federal budget information regarding each federal agency involved in Chesapeake Bay restoration.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report on progress in achieving and maintaining nutrient and sediment reduction goals for each tributary basin. Sets forth the baseline for the report and reporting requirements.
Requires the states of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia to submit to the Administrator information relating to nutrient and sediment reduction for each Chesapeake Bay tributary basin. Prohibits the Administrator from making a grant to any state which fails to provide required information.
Requires the Administrator to request the Local Government Advisory Committee to report to EPA on measurable goals for local governments for nutrient and sediment reduction.
Requires the Administrator: (1) to establish an implementation assistance program to support tributary strategies and other projects toward achievement of Chesapeake Bay Agreement goals; (2) to assist local governments and nonprofit organizations to implement tributary strategies and other complementary cooperative, locally based protection and restoration programs or projects under the technical assistance and assistance grants program; (3) in cooperation with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to provide capacity building assistance to enhance local governments' capabilities to carry out protection and restoration programs or projects within a tributary basin; and (4) to provide grants to implement tributary strategies that accelerate the reduction of nonpoint source nutrient and sediment pollution.
Requires specified load allocations to be incorporated into discharge permits until applicable total maximum daily loads are established.
Updates reporting deadlines for the study of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
Authorizes appropriations through FY2012.
People & committees
Rep. Gilchrest, Wayne T. [R-MD-1] · R–MD
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: Aug 14, 2025. 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.16 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.16 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.16 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.16 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.