PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 566.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 6, 2000
Wet Weather Quality Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to require each permit, order, or decree issued pursuant to such Act for a discharge from a municipal combined storm and sanitary sewer to conform to the Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy signed by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on April 11, 1994, and to provide for long-term control plans to meet water quality standards as expeditiously as possible. Directs the Administrator to report to Congress on progress made by EPA, States, and municipalities in implementing and enforcing the CSO control policy.Authorizes the Administrator to provide technical assistance and grants for treatment works to carry out pilot projects relating to specified areas of wet weather discharge control. Authorizes appropriations.Permits the Administrator, in any fiscal year in which at least $1.2 billion is available for grants to States for water pollution control revolving funds, to make grants to States or municipalities for planning, design, and construction of treatment works to intercept, transport, control, or treat municipal CSO and sanitary sewer overflows. Gives priority for grants to certain applicants, including municipalities that are financially distressed communities. Requires the Federal share of the cost of activities funded by such grants to be at least 55 percent. Authorizes and allocates appropriations. Requires the Administrator to report periodically to Congress on the recommended funding levels for such grants.Directs the Administrator to report to Congress on: (1) the extent of health and environmental impacts caused by municipal CSO and sanitary sewer overflows; and (2) the resources spent, and technologies used, by municipalities to address such impacts. Requires the Administrator to maintain a clearinghouse of technologies for addressing such impacts.
People & committees
Rep. Barcia, James A. [D-MI-5] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 566.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-943.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Transportation. H. Rept. 106-943.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
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: Apr 7, 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.828 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.828 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.828 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.828 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.