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 · Jan 21, 1993
Great Lakes Sediment Control Act of 1993 - Amends the River and Harbor Act of 1970 to make it unlawful, after 1994, to dispose of dredge spoil in Great Lakes waters other than at a confined disposal facility unless the disposal is consistent with guidelines established under this Act. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop guidelines for the disposal of sediment material in the open waters of the Great Lakes. Prescribes civil penalties for violations concerning the disposal of dredge spoil in the Great Lakes. Prohibits the Secretary of the Army from establishing any confined spoil disposal facility in Great Lakes waters unless the facility is consistent with such guidelines. Requires the Administrator to evaluate the integrity of each confined disposal facility in the Great Lakes and assess the environmental consequences of such facilities. Directs the Secretary to submit a remediation plan for each facility that is affecting a surrounding area in a manner inconsistent with guidelines. Provides for termination of the use of facilities for which remediation plans are not undertaken by January 1, 1999. Requires persons who dispose of dredge spoil at confined spoil disposal facilities to obtain permits from the Secretary. Directs the Secretary to: (1) develop tributary sediment transport models for each major river system that flows into a Great Lakes federally authorized commercial harbor, channel maintenance project site, or area of concern; (2) develop an analytical method to project the effectiveness of sediment source reduction approaches and scenarios in reducing upstream sediment loadings; and (3) use such method to conduct sediment load reduction analyses for the models. Requires the Secretary to transfer funds to the EPA for making grants to States for projects to reduce erosion that contributes to the sedimentation of federally authorized commercial harbors, channel maintenance project sites, and areas of concern. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH] · D–OH
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 S492-493)
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.75 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.75 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.75 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.75 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.