PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 5, 2009
Puget Sound Recovery Act of 2009 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) establish a Puget Sound Program Office, to be co-located with the Puget Sound Partnership in Washington; and (2) appoint a Director of the Office.
Requires the Administrator, acting through the Director, to: (1) assist and support the implementation of the Puget Sound Action Agenda; (2) provide funding and make grants for implementation of the Agenda and related projects; (3) promote methodologies and technologies that are cost-effective and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Agenda and the EPA permitting processes; (4) coordinate the major functions of the federal government relating to the implementation of the Agenda; (5) coordinate the research and planning projects authorized under this Act with federal and state agencies, tribes, universities, and the Puget Sound Partnership's Science Panel; (6) track progress toward meeting the identified goals and objectives of the Agenda; (7) coordinate projects, programs, and studies for the protection of Puget Sound, the Strait of Georgia, and the Strait of Juan de Fuca with Canadian authorities; (8) collect and make available to the public publications and information relating to the environmental quality of Puget Sound; and (9) implement projects, programs, and studies to implement the Agenda.
Requires the Administrator to establish a Puget Sound Program Advisory Council to provide advice on the implementation of the Agenda's goals and objectives.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator and the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership to a report, biennially, to Congress on implementation of the Agenda.
Allows the Administrator, acting through the Director, to make grants for projects, programs, and studies to implement the Agenda, including a comprehensive grant to the Partnership to manage such implementation.
Requires the President, as part of the annual budget, to submit information regarding expenditures and roles of each federal agency involved in Puget Sound protection and restoration.
People & committees
Rep. Dicks, Norman D. [D-WA-6] · D–WA
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.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E2729)
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.4029 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.4029 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.4029 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.4029 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.