PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 25, 2010
Delaware River Basin Conservation Act of 2010 - Requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish a Delaware River Basin Restoration Program, under which the Director shall: (1) work in consultation with existing management structures to identify, prioritize, and implement restoration and protection activities within the Delaware Basin (defined as including all of Delaware Bay and portions of Delaware, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania located in the Delaware River watershed); (2) adopt a single plan that includes a shared set of priorities for implementation of the Program; (3) establish the Delaware River Basin Restoration Grant Program; and (4) provide technical assistance to other federal agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit and community organizations, universities, and others to carry out the Restoration Program.
Requires the Grant Program to provide competitive matching grants to state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, community organizations, universities, and others to carry out Restoration Program purposes. Requires the Director to develop criteria to ensure that funded activities: (1) restore or protect fish and wildlife species and their habitats; (2) improve or protect water quality by reducing nonpoint and point source pollutants; (3) reduce or improve management of water volume and flooding; (4) address priority needs or actions identified in the single plan adopted; and/or (5) include activities with multiple benefits in the Basin, including habitat, water quality, and flood protection. Limits the federal share of the total cost of a funded project to 75%. Authorizes the Director to contract with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation or another organization with the expertise to manage the Grant Program.
People & committees
Rep. Castle, Michael N. [R-DE-At Large] · R–DE
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 Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to House Transportation and Infrastructure
Referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to House Natural Resources
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 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.4698 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.4698 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.4698 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.4698 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.