PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 29, 2010
Permanent Prevention of Asian Carp Act of 2010 - Directs the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to study the watersheds of the Illinois, Chicago, and Calumet Rivers, including their tributaries, that drain directly into Lake Michigan to determine the feasibility and best means of implementing the hydrologic separation of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Basins to prevent the introduction or establishment of populations of aquatic nuisance species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins through the Chicago Area Water System (CAWS) and other aquatic pathways.
Requires the study to: (1) include options to address flooding, Chicago wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, waterway safety operations, and barge and recreational vessel traffic alternatives; and (2) contain a detailed analysis of the environmental benefits and costs of each option.
Directs: (1) the Secretary to carry out this Act at federal expense; and (2) the President, or the Council on Environmental Quality as a designee of the President, to oversee the study to ensure its thoroughness and timely completion.
People & committees
Rep. Camp, Dave [R-MI-4] · 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: 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.5625 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.5625 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.5625 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.5625 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.