PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 13, 2000
Water Pollution Program Enhancements Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize appropriations for grants to States and interstate agencies for pollution control programs for FY 2001 through 2007. Makes $50 million of such funds available to States for the: (1) collection of reliable monitoring data; (2) the improvement of specified lists regarding waters with insufficient controls and maximum daily loads; (3) preparation of total maximum daily load allocations for such waters; and (4) development of watershed management strategies.Reauthorizes appropriations for FY 2001 through 2007 for grants to States for: (1) implementation of nonpoint source pollution control management programs; and (2) groundwater quality protection activities to advance States toward implementation of comprehensive nonpoint source pollution control programs. Makes $200 million available from funds appropriated for such management programs for States to provide grants to landowners to develop and implement nonpoint source control projects to restore or improve water quality of impaired waters that have been identified as a priority for restoration. Limits such grants to 90 percent of project costs.(Sec. 4) Requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to contract with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a study on the: (1) scientific basis underlying the development and implementation of total maximum daily loads; (2) costs of implementing measures to comply with such loads; and (3) availability of alternative programs or mechanisms to reduce the discharge of pollutants from point sources and nonpoint source pollution to achieve water quality standards. Authorizes appropriations. Requires the Administrator to submit such study to specified congressional committees.(Sec. 5) Directs the Administrator to establish jointly with the States a watershed management pilot program to evaluate the relative water quality improvements resulting from up to five State watershed management programs or strategies that incorporate non-Federal water quality control programs, innovative technologies, and incentives to reduce the discharge of pollutants or total maximum daily load allocations under the Act. Provides that a strategy, to be eligible for consideration in the program, must be expected to achieve environmental results comparable to those of the Federal total maximum daily load program. Requires reports to Congress on the program. Terminates the program after three years after a State is accepted in the program. Authorizes appropriations.(Sec. 6) Requires the Administrator, prior to finalizing the Proposed Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program and Federal Antidegradation Policy and the Proposed Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations Concerning Total Maximum Daily Loads of August 1999, to: (1) review the NAS study prepared under this Act; and (2) take into consideration NAS recommendations in issuing any final regulations. Directs the Administrator, if provisions are included in any final regulation that are not consistent with NAS recommendations, to publish an explanation with the final rule of why such recommendations were not included in the regulation.
People & committees
Sen. Crapo, Mike [R-ID] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Received in the House.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S10156; text as passed Senate: CR S10156)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S10156; text as passed Senate: CR S10156)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 934.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Smith, of NH with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 106-485.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Smith, of NH with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 106-485.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.
Committee on Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 106-971.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2729-2730)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.2417 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 S.2417 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 S.2417 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 S.2417 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.