PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S707-709)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 23, 2010
Columbia River Restoration Act of 2010 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to: (1) establish within EPA a Columbia River Program Team, located within the Oregon Operations Office for EPA's Region 10; and (2) appoint a Team Leader who shall be highly qualified to support the development and implementation of projects, programs, and studies necessary to implement the Columbia River Basin Toxics Reduction Action Plan developed by EPA and the Columbia River Toxics Reduction Working Group in 2010.
Directs the Administrator, acting through the Team Leader, to: (1) assist and support the implementation of the Action Plan and the Estuary Partnership Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan adopted by EPA and the Governors of Oregon and Washington on October 20, 1999; (2) coordinate the implementation of, and the development of any updates to, those Plans, with programs and projects in the Middle and Upper Columbia River Basin; (3) make other appropriate updates; (4) provide funding and make grants for implementation consistent with Plan priorities; (5) promote innovative methodologies and technologies that are cost effective and consistent with Plan goals and objectives and EPA's permitting processes; (6) coordinate the major functions of the federal government related to Plan implementation; (7) coordinate authorized research and planning projects; (8) track progress toward meeting Plan goals and objectives; and (9) collect and make available to the public information regarding the environmental quality of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.
Requires the Administrator, through the Team Leader, to carry out projects, programs, and studies to implement the Plans. Authorizes the Administrator to give special emphasis to those projects, programs, and studies identified as priorities by the Estuary Partnership in the Plans. Authorizes the Administrator, through the Team Leader, to make grants to implement the Plans. Sets forth requirements regarding grant allocations and the federal share of costs.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the President, as part of his annual budget submission to Congress, to submit information regarding each federal agency involved in protection and restoration of the Columbia River Basin.
People & committees
Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR] · D–OR
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S707-709)
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.3025 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.3025 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.3025 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.3025 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.