PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 27, 1995
Waterways Restoration Act of 1995 - Amends the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act to delete the requirement that each watershed improvement under such Act must contain benefits directly related to agriculture that account for at least 20 percent of the total project benefits. Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and carry out a Waterways Restoration Program which provides technical assistance and grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities for carrying out waterway restoration projects. Requires such projects to achieve ecological restoration or protection and: (1) flood damage reduction; (2) erosion control; (3) stormwater management; or (4) water quality enhancement. Specifies fund uses and priorities, including the location of projects in low-income or economically depressed areas adversely impacted by poor watershed management. Outlines other project requirements, including a cost-benefit analysis. Requires the Secretary to designate Program administrators for each participating State (including a State agency if approved by the Secretary). Requires program grants to be awarded on an annual basis. Provides project application and selection requirements, including the establishment in each participating State of an interdisciplinary team of specialists to assist in reviewing project applications under the Program. Outlines conditions for receiving assistance under the Program, with sponsor and cosponsor requirements. Requires a non-Federal share of 25 percent of project costs, with a waiver for economically depressed communities. Limits the administrative and technical assistance costs of the Program. Requires the Governor of each participating State to establish a citizens oversight committee to evaluate management of the Program in that State. Requires program administrators to issue annual reports summarizing the Program evaluations of the oversight committees.
People & committees
Sen. Hatfield, Mark O. [R-OR] · R–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 Agriculture.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4657)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 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 S.626 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.626 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.626 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.626 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.