PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 14, 1994
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a multimedia national estuary pollution prevention demonstration program to increase the use of modernizing industrial source reduction practices through demonstrations in estuaries. Requires the Administrator to maintain a registry of modernizing toxic use and waste reduction technologies requiring demonstration. Authorizes persons with permits to discharge into estuaries with approved conservation and management plans to participate in the demonstration program through the institution of: (1) a source reduction practice from the registry if the plan identified the source to be reduced as a problem; or (2) any other innovative source reduction practice subject to a specified determination by the Administrator. Exempts demonstration program participants from fees for the development of revised effluent guidelines. Grants participants an additional year to comply with new or revised effluent standards as necessary and appropriate. Directs the Administrator to establish: (1) a pollution prevention extension service to provide an outreach effort to encourage pollution prevention by industrial discharges to estuaries with approved conservation and management plans; and (2) a national estuary pollution prevention clearinghouse. Permits municipalities located within the watershed of an estuary with an approved plan to apply for technical and financial assistance for: (1) implementing source reduction of toxic pollutants in urban runoff, wastewater, and stormwater and to address problems resulting from failures of underground septic systems; or (2) studying the impacts of separating combined sanitary/stormwater systems in municipalities which have combined systems. Sets forth assistance eligibility requirements. Authorizes the use of State revolving loan funds for such assistance. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Rep. Machtley, Ronald K. [R-RI-1] · R–RI
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.
Executive Comment Requested from EPA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.
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: Feb 7, 2024. 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.4226 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.4226 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.4226 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.4226 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.