H.R. 202: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit citizens suits against publicly owned treatment works, to provide for defenses, to extend the period of a permit, to limit attorneys fees, and for other purposes.
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 202: To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit citizens suits against publicly owned treatment works, to provide for defenses, to extend the period of a permit, to limit attorneys fees, and for other purposes.
113th Congress · introduced 2013-01-04 · Environmental Protection · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2013-01-04 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit citizens suits against publicly owned treatment works, to provide for defenses, to extend the period of a permit, to limit attorneys fees, and for other purposes.
Plain summary
Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to prohibit a citizen suit from being commenced against a publicly owned treatment works (POTW): (1) to enforce an effluent standard or limitation unless the POTW is in significant non-compliance as defined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidance document entitled "A General Design for SNC Redefinition Enhancement in PCS," or (2) that is in significant non-compliance based on a manual designation as defined by such guidance document. Prohibits liability for an unlawful discharge of a pollutant from a POTW for a person who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the immediate cause of such discharge and any damages was: (1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; or (3) an act or omission of a third party other than an employee or agent of such person or one whose act or omission occurs in connection with a contractual relationship with such person, if such person exercised due care and took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of such third party and the consequences that could foreseeably result from such acts or omissions. Requires the Administrator of EPA or a state to provide a 60-day waiting period between the notice of a violation of such Act by a POTW and the issuance of a civil penalty. Prohibits the Administrator from assessing a penalty for a violation if the POTW submits a viable plan for correcting the non-compliance within such period and thereafter implements such plan. Requires any permit issued to the owner or operator of a POTW to discharge a pollutant under such Act to have a 15-year (currently, 5-year) term. Limits attorney fees with respect to actions involving POTWs to the prevailing fees in the community. Requires any new or increased treatment requirement associated with a permit issued to the owner or operator of a POTW to discharge a pollutant under such Act to be subject to a cost-benefit analysis.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to limit citizens suits against publicly owned treatment works, to provide for defenses, to extend the period of a permit, to limit attorneys fees, and for other purposes.
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] · 0 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Sponsor's campaign money: Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4] reported raising $1.3 million (2025–2026). Details. Shown for context only; it does not mean any donor supported this bill.
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113hr202.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/hr>
Record fed-us-cong113-hr202 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113