PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.4289 / 103rd Congress

Waterways Restoration Act of 1994

Subcommittee Hearings Held.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 21, 1994

Waterways Restoration Act of 1994 - Amends the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to delete the requirement that each watershed improvement under such Act must contain benefits directly related to agriculture that account for at least 20 percent of the total project benefits. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and implement a Waterways Restoration Program which provides technical assistance and grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities for carrying out waterway restoration projects. Requires such projects to achieve ecological restoration or protection and one or more of the following objectives: (1) flood damage reduction; (2) erosion control; (3) stormwater management; or (4) water quality enhancement. Provides project descriptions and priorities, including the location of projects in low-income or economically depressed areas adversely impacted by poor watershed management. Outlines other project requirements, including a cost-benefit analysis. Requires the Secretary to designate Program administrators for each participating State (including a State agency if approved by the Secretary). Requires program grants to be awarded on an annual basis. Provides project application and selection requirements, including the establishment in each participating State of an interdisciplinary team of specialists to assist in reviewing project applications under the Program. Outlines conditions for receiving assistance under the Program, with sponsor and cosponsor requirements. Requires a non-Federal share of 25 percent of project costs, with a waiver for economically depressed communities. Limits the administrative and technical assistance costs of the Program. Requires the governor of each participating State to establish a citizens oversight committee to evaluate management of the Program in that State. Requires program administrators to issue annual reports summarizing the Program evaluations of the oversight committees. Provides funding.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Furse, Elizabeth [D-OR-1] · D–OR

Committees

  • Agriculture Committee
  • Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
  • Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
41 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  2. Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.

  3. Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.

  4. Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources Discharged.

  5. Subcommittee Hearings Held.

  6. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

  7. Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment, Credit and Rural Development.

  8. Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

  9. Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment and Natural Resources.

  10. Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.

  11. Referred to the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries.

  12. Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.

  13. Introduced in House

  14. Introduced in House

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

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.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze H.R.4289 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.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine H.R.4289 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.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine H.R.4289 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.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine H.R.4289 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.

View full prompt & sources