PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 13, 2000
Fishable Waters Act of 2000 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to add that it is the national policy to achieve: (1) the protection and restoration of sustained fish production and fisheries habitat; and (2) the enhancement of access for fisheries use through voluntary watershed planning and incentives for site-specific projects.Provides for the establishment of federally- assisted State programs for fisheries habitat protection and access enhancement. Requires States to: (1) establish advisory councils to provide recommendations with respect to program decisions; and (2) maintain a fisheries habitat account.Allows the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to approved State programs.Sets forth processes for watershed planning, including: (1) data collection; (2) evaluation of geomorphological characteristics; (3) short- and long-term objectives; (4) identification of existing threats to the fisheries habitat; and (5) monitoring for water quality and quantity.Provides processes for plan approval, public participation, and use of funds.Directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to establish a communities fisheries habitat revitalization program for funding to approved project sponsors for watershed restoration, creation of flood plain riparian zones, creation of wetlands, stormwater management, and other revitalization projects.Requires the establishment by the Secretary of an electronic database of community fisheries habitat clearinghouse information. Requires compilation of other scientific fisheries-related indicators and habitat characteristics.Directs the Secretary to make grants to State for approved projects. Authorizes funding for restricting livestock access to water within a designated watershed. Gives grant priority to States exceeding other States in certain categories, including hydroelectric instream use, sales of fishing and migratory bird hunting licenses, and the degree of degraded water in the State.
People & committees
Sen. Bond, Christopher S. [R-MO] · R–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2760-2761)
Introduced in Senate
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 S.2441 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.2441 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.2441 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.2441 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.