PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 20, 2009
Chesapeake Clean Water and Ecosystem Restoration Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to: (1) revise and expand definitions under the Chesapeake Bay Program; (2) expand the implementation and monitoring grant programs; and (3) require that at least 10% of funds for implementation grants be made available to the states of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia, and that at least 20% of such funds be made available to Chesapeake Bay States (i.e., Delaware, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia) to provide technical assistance to agricultural producers and foresters.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) make public by March 31 of each year a Chesapeake Bay action plan to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay; (2) establish a Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Grants Program; (3) establish minimum criteria for watershed implementation plans; (4) establish by December 31, 2010, a Chesapeake Bay-wide TMDL (total maximum daily load for nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loading to the waters in the Chesapeake Bay); (5) establish by May 12, 2012, an interstate nitrogen and phosphorus trading program for the Chesapeake Bay; (6) designate the Asian oyster (species Crassostrea ariakensis) as a biological pollutant in the Chesapeake Bay; and (7) conduct a study on the impacts of the commercial harvesting of Menhaden (species Brevoortia tyrannus) on Chesapeake Bay water quality.
Requires each Chesapeake Bay State to: (1) submit to the Administrator by May 12, 2011, a watershed implementation plan to be fully implemented by May 12, 2025; and (2) institute a ban on phosphorus cleaning agents within three years after the enactment of this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide funds to the states of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia to carry out a program to eradicate or control nutria (species Myocaster coypus) and restore marshland destroyed by nutria.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2015 for nonpoint source management programs (reduction of water pollution from land use practices).
People & committees
Rep. Cummings, Elijah E. [D-MD-7] · D–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.
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.3852 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.3852 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.3852 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.3852 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.