WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HR 9483

Clean Ports for Commerce Act

119th Congress Introduced by Hillary Scholten

The bill requires the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct advanced planning for dredging in PFAS-contaminated areas, including PFAS risk, waste handling, and stakeholder coordinatio

Introduced in House
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HR 9483

Bill overview

HR 9483, introduced in the 119th Congress, seeks to require the Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to conduct advanced planning for dredging activities in areas known to have PFAS contamination. The bill is aimed at improving planning and readiness for dredging projects in contaminated waters, with a focus on PFAS-related concerns. The measure has one listed sponsor (co-sponsor: Hillary Scholten) and was referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 25, 2026.

Main purpose and intent

  • Mandate the Corps to carry out advanced planning for dredging activities in PFAS-contaminated areas.
  • Ensure that planning accounts for PFAS-related risks, cleanup considerations, environmental impacts, and compliance with health and safety and environmental standards before project execution.
  • Improve coordination among federal agencies, state and local authorities, and stakeholders in areas affected by PFAS contamination who require dredging for navigational, flood control, or other authorized purposes.

Key provisions and changes (as implied)

  • Advanced planning requirement: The Corps must engage in comprehensive early planning for dredging projects in PFAS-impacted zones. This likely includes scoping, feasibility assessment, environmental reviews, risk assessment, and development of alternative strategies to manage PFAS during dredging.
  • Contaminant considerations: Planning must incorporate PFAS-specific considerations such as waste handling, containment, disposal options for dredged material, and protections for workers and nearby communities.
  • Environmental and health safeguards: The bill would direct integration of health and environmental protections into the planning process, potentially aligning with existing environmental statutes and safety protocols.
  • Stakeholder coordination: The scope suggests enhanced coordination with relevant agencies, states, tribal governments, and affected communities to address PFAS concerns in the planning phase.
  • Compliance and reporting: The legislation may establish reporting, documentation, or documentation standards to demonstrate that advanced planning meets PFAS-related requirements prior to project initiation.

Note: The bill text is not provided here, so the exact subsections, authorities, funding implications, and enforcement mechanisms are not specified beyond the described purposes.

Who and what would be affected

  • Primary entity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would implement the advanced planning requirements for dredging projects in PFAS-contaminated areas.
  • Stakeholders: State and local governments, tribal governments, environmental and public health agencies, communities living near dredging sites, and potentially industries relying on waterways (shipping, flood control, water resources).
  • Dredging projects: Any Corps-administered dredging projects in areas with known PFAS contamination would be subject to the advanced planning requirements.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Introduction and referral: Introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on June 25, 2026.
  • Next steps: The committee would review, hold hearings if scheduled, and could amend or report the bill. If reported, it would move toward consideration on the House floor and potential passage or further action in the Senate.
  • Potential fiscal implications: While not specified here, advanced planning activities could entail additional planning resources, staff time, and coordination efforts. The bill’s text would clarify whether the planning must be funded or authorized under existing Corps programs.

Potential impacts and considerations

  • Risk reduction: By emphasizing advanced planning for PFAS testing, containment, and disposal, the bill could reduce environmental and public health risks associated with dredging in contaminated areas.
  • Timeline effects: Requiring comprehensive planning before dredging could affect project timelines, potentially delaying immediate dredging work but improving safety and compliance.
  • Environmental justice considerations: Enhanced community engagement and transparent planning could address concerns of communities near PFAS-impacted waterways.

If you’d like, I can tailor this summary to a specific audience (e.g., policymakers, community groups) or pull in related background on PFAS-related dredging practices and Corps authorities to provide additional context.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.