PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1059.
Congressional Research Service
Version 80 · Reported to Senate without amendment · Sep 24, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Great Lakes Legacy Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to include among activities that the Great Lakes National Program Office is authorized to carry out for the remediation of sediment contamination in areas of concern: (1) demonstration or pilot projects that use innovative approaches, technologies, or techniques for the remediation of sediment contamination; and (2) activities to restore aquatic habitat after remediation. Authorizes the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide additional consideration to projects that are funded by potentially responsible parties (individuals or entities that may be liable under federal or state environmental remediation laws with respect to a project carried out under such Act) and determined to be of greater environmental significance than competing proposals.
Revises provisions concerning the nonfederal share of the costs of such projects. Authorizes the Administrator, Acting through the Program Office, to enter into agreements with nonfederal sponsors to implement projects under which such sponsors may pay in advance their share of the project costs and receive reimbursement for such costs from the Administrator.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Administrator to implement a public information and participation program relating to the remediation of contaminated sediment in areas of concern in the United States.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2009-FY2013 for: (1) such remediation; (2) the public information and participation program; and (3) research on the development and use of innovative approaches, technologies, and techniques for such remediation.
People & committees
Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 1059.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Boxer without amendment. With written report No. 110-488.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported by Senator Boxer without amendment. With written report No. 110-488.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.2994 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.