PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Hearings Held by Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 19, 2000
Water Pollution Program Improvement Act of 2000 - Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the: (1) scientific basis underlying the development and implementation of total maximum daily loads for pollutants in waters for which effluent limitations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are not stringent enough to implement applicable water quality standards; (2) costs of implementing measures to comply with such loads; and (3) availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source pollution to achieve water quality standards. Requires the NAS to report on the study to the Administrator and specified congressional committees. Provides for Federal, State, and private sector comments on such report. Authorizes appropriations.Requires the Administrator, before making a final determination with respect to the Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy and the Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning Total Maximum Daily Loads of August 1999, to: (1) review the NAS report and incorporate recommendations into the proposed revisions; and (2) publish in the Federal Register and receive public comment on incorporated recommendations and those that weren't incorporated, with an explanation why they were not incorporated. Bars the Administrator from making such final determination until the conclusion of the public notice and comment period.Prohibits the Administrator, for purposes of ensuring that States continue to have exclusive authority to regulate nonpoint sources of pollution, from: (1) taking any action to affect any definition of, or distinction made between, point and nonpoint sources of pollution contained in an EPA rule in effect on June 1, 2000; and (2) requiring approval of any measures set forth by a State to control nonpoint sources of pollution pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, except as authorized under specified provisions regarding nonpoint source management programs.
People & committees
Rep. Combest, Larry [R-TX-19] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Hearings Held by Committee on Agriculture.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 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.4502 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.4502 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.4502 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.4502 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.