Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill to restrict federal control over Great Lakes water resources and management.
The problem
Concerns exist that federal agencies have too much power over Great Lakes water use, protection, and development decisions affecting nearby states and communities.
The proposal
The bill limits federal authority over Great Lakes water resources, likely returning more decision-making power to individual states and local governments in the region.
The impact
States bordering the Great Lakes, water users, environmental groups, and businesses relying on the lakes would face different rules depending on state versus federal oversight.
States and communities near the Great Lakes could make their own decisions about water use faster without waiting for federal approval. This allows regions to solve their own water problems based on local needs.
Fewer federal agencies involved means fewer delays and less paperwork for businesses and projects needing water access. This could speed up development and economic activity in the region.
States can customize water policies to match their specific environment and economy rather than following one-size-fits-all federal rules.
Removing federal oversight could allow states to prioritize economic gains over protecting the lakes from pollution and overuse. The Great Lakes supply drinking water to millions of people.
If each state makes its own rules, one state's pollution or water diversion could harm neighboring states that share the lakes. Conflicts between states could increase.
Weaker federal standards might lead to less safe drinking water in communities relying on the Great Lakes if states cut environmental protections to save money.
Federal rules ensure minimum protections everywhere; removing them could create gaps where some areas have poor water quality standards.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 7250
To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
HR 10602
Ottawa County Environmental Infrastructure Act
HR 10533
Newton County Water Infrastructure Improvement Act
S 4040
Dakota Water Resources Act Amendments of 2026
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.