To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit citizens suits against publicly owned treatment works, to provide for defenses, to extend the period of a permit, to limit attorneys fees, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2013
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to prohibit a citizen suit from being commenced against a publicly owned treatment works (POTW): (1) to enforce an effluent standard or limitation unless the POTW is in significant non-compliance as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidance document entitled "A General Design for SNC Redefinition Enhancement in PCS," or (2) that is in significant non-compliance based on a manual designation as defined by such guidance document.
Prohibits liability for an unlawful discharge of a pollutant from a POTW for a person who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the immediate cause of such discharge and any damages was: (1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; or (3) an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of such person or one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship with such person, if such person exercised due care and took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions.
Requires the Administrator of EPA or a state to provide a 60-day waiting period between the notice of a violation of such Act by a POTW and the issuance of a civil penalty. Prohibits the Administrator from assessing a penalty for a violation if the POTW submits a viable plan for correcting the non-compliance within such period and thereafter implements such plan.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Read full official summaryShow less
Requires any permit issued to the owner or operator of a POTW to discharge a pollutant under such Act to have a 15-year (currently, 5-year) term. Limits attorney fees with respect to actions involving POTWs to the prevailing fees in the community. Requires any new or increased treatment requirement associated with a permit issued to the owner or operator of a POTW to discharge a pollutant under such Act to be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 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.202 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.202 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.202 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.202 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.