PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 53 · Passed House · Jun 15, 2021
Ocean Pollution Reduction Act II
This bill revises requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant in San Diego, California.
Currently, the plant must meet standards established under the NPDES permit program for the primary and secondary treatment of wastewater discharged by the plant into marine waters. The city of San Diego may apply for permit modifications, which offer alternatives to certain secondary treatment standards.
This bill eliminates the need for the city to obtain a separate permit for such modifications. Instead, the city may apply to obtain the permit modifications under the main NPDES permit if the plant meets certain conditions, such as the implementation of a pretreatment program.
People & committees
Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-52] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Pursuant to section 8 of H. Res. 473, and the motion offered by Mr. McGovern, the following bills passed under suspension of the rules: H.R. 293; H.R. 587; H.R. 610, as amended; H.R. 1144, as amended; H.R. 1703, as amended; H.R. 1921; H.R. 2008; H.R. 2332, as amended; H.R. 2545; and H.R. 3642, as amended. (consideration: CR H2792-2799; text: CR H2792-2793)
Passed/agreed to in House: Pursuant to section 8 of H. Res. 473, and the motion offered by Mr. McGovern, the following bills passed under suspension of the rules: H.R. 293; H.R. 587; H.R. 610, as amended; H.R. 1144, as amended; H.R. 1703, as amended; H.R. 1921; H.R. 2008; H.R. 2332, as amended; H.R. 2545; and H.R. 3642, as amended.(consideration: CR H2792-2799; text: CR H2792-2793)
Pursuant to the provisions of H. Res. 473, proceedings on H.R. 587 are considered vacated.
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 587.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2759-2761; text: CR H2759-2760)
Ms. Norton moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 24.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 117-41.
Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 117-41.
Ordered to be Reported by the Yeas and Nays: 54 - 2.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment Discharged.
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.587 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.