PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 25, 2015
Great Bay Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015
This bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to postpone for five years establishing water quality standards or effluent limitations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) if those standards or limitations reduce nitrogen discharges into the Great Bay Estuary. That estuary 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.
During that five-year period, the EPA may not require a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) to commence construction on any upgrade of a facility for the purpose of enforcing those standards or limitations if the POTW contributes nitrogen loadings in that estuary.
The EPA must study eelgrass levels and the causes of any loss of eelgrass habitat in the Great Bay Estuary, and allow public participation in the development of the study.
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: Aug 12, 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.3615 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.3615 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.3615 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.3615 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.