PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 4, 2010
Great Lakes Ecosystem Protection Act of 2010 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to expand the duties of the Great Lakes Program Office by requiring the Office to: (1) provide support for Great Lakes governance and management; and (2) coordinate with the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
Establishes: (1) the Great Lakes Leadership Council to establish policy, goals, and priorities with respect to Great Lakes protection and restoration, determine a process for participating in international forums, and provide annual input regarding federal budget priorities and levels for Great Lakes protection and restoration; (2) the Great Lakes Management Committee within the Council to report to and provide direction for the Council, monitor and assist implementation activities relating to Great Lakes management, and engage in problem solving regarding Great Lakes management; and (3) the Great Lakes Interagency Task Force.
Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to report annually to Congress on budgets and restoration activities relating to EPA's organizational elements involved in Great Lakes activities and EPA's reasons for approving or disapproving the Council's recommendations.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Authorizes appropriations for: (1) remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern in the Great Lakes; and (2) the Great Lakes Program.
Requires EPA, in coordination with federal partners, to implement a Great Lakes Restoration Initiative which will: (1) identify and support programs to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem; (2) be based on the work of the Task Force and the Council's stakeholders and nongovernmental partners; and (3) represent the government's commitment to significantly advance Great Lakes protection and restoration. Prohibits funding made available to implement the Initiative from being used for water infrastructure activity that is implemented using funds made available under the clean water or drinking water state revolving fund program.
Requires federal agencies to: (1) maintain the base level of funding for their Great Lakes activities; and (2) identify new activities to support the environmental goals of the Initiative.
People & committees
Rep. Ehlers, Vernon J. [R-MI-3] · R–MI
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.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Nov 28, 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.4755 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.4755 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.4755 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.4755 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.