PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 14, 2014
Clean Water Affordability Act of 2014 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to require the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a comprehensive and integrated planning approach to the obligations concerning permits for pollutant discharges of a publicly owned permittee. Defines such a permittee as a treatment works that is publicly owned or a municipal separate storm sewer system.
Requires the approach to such obligations to: (1) include requirements for a schedule under which they may be implemented, and (2) account for changed circumstances in the obligations of the publicly owned permittee.
Allows approval of a permit under a state-administered program with a term of more than 5 but no more than 25 years if the permittee has an integrated plan approved under this Act. Requires the Administrator to update the guidance entitled "Combined Sewer Overflows--Guidance for Financial Capability Assessment and Schedule Development," dated February 1997, to ensure that the evaluations by the Administrator of financial capability assessment and schedule development meet specified criteria, including criteria used in: (1) assessing financial capability of a community to make investments necessary to make water quality-related improvements, and (2) implementing water quality-related improvements.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Revises requirements for capitalization grant agreements with states for establishing water pollution control revolving funds. Requires states to set aside 15% of funds for assistance to municipalities of fewer than 10,000 individuals that meet specified affordability criteria. Authorizes the fund to be used to make loans at terms not to exceed 30 years or the design life of the project to be financed with the proceeds of the loan (currently 20 years). Authorizes a state to provide additional subsidization, including forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, and grants to benefit a municipality that: (1) meets affordability criteria, or (2) does not meet such criteria if the recipient seeks the additional subsidization to benefit ratepayers that will experience a significant hardship from the increase in rates necessary to finance the project or activity for which assistance is sought. Establishes affordability criteria to assist in identifying municipalities that would experience a significant hardship raising the revenue necessary to finance a project or activity eligible for assistance.
People & committees
Rep. Latta, Robert E. [R-OH-5] · R–OH
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 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.3862 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.3862 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.3862 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.3862 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.