PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 31, 2001
Fishable Waters Act of 2001 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the Act) to establish a program of grants to States with approved fisheries habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement programs.Permits States to designate watershed councils to carry out fisheries habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement plans.Makes projects that support or implement specific recommendations contained in a council plan eligible for financial support from a State's fisheries habitat account established pursuant to this Act.Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish a community fisheries habitat revitalization program to provide for assistance to State fish and wildlife agencies for projects to improve urban watersheds and public access to such watersheds in order to restore fisheries habitat or enhance fisheries uses and provide recreational opportunities.Requires States with approved programs to establish fisheries habitat accounts for providing financial support for recommended projects.Requires the Secretary, acting through the Directors of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Geological Survey, to establish a national planning program for protection and restoration of fisheries habitat through improved floodplain management practices on major waterways.Provides for public dissemination of technical information on fisheries-related needs for instream flows.Treats Indian tribes as States for purposes of this Act.Reauthorizes appropriations for FY 2002 through 2006 under the Act for grants for: (1) nonpoint source pollution control management programs; and (2) groundwater quality protection activities to advance States toward implementation of such programs.
People & committees
Rep. Tanner, John S. [D-TN-8] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 19, 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.325 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.325 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.325 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.325 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.