PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 26, 2013
Recognizing the National Benefits of Flood Protection Act of 2013 - Requires a feasibility study for a flood, hurricane, or storm damage reduction project to include calculations of the anticipated: (1) reduction in damage to public and private property and infrastructure; (2) direct and indirect economic benefits, including from potential reductions in national and regional economic volatility, disruptions, and losses; and (3) benefits to public safety, including protection of evacuation routes.
Authorizes the non-federal interest for such a project to submit to the Chief of Engineers a request for a project review if the Chief: (1) determines that the project is not feasible, (2) issues an unfavorable report for the project, or (3) identifies the feasibility study for the project as inactive.
Directs the Chief to establish a panel to conduct such reviews for each Corps of Engineers division not later than 60 days after the first request for a review of a project within that division is submitted. Requires such panel to conduct a review of: (1) the feasibility study for the project; (2) the adequacy and accessibility of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used in preparing such study; (3) public comments on the project; and (4) any additional information submitted by the non-federal interest as part of the review request.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires: (1) the panel to submit a final report containing an economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the feasibility study and a determination of the project's feasibility; and (2) the Chief, if the panel determines that a project is feasible, to issue a favorable report for the project.
Directs the Chief to: (1) give priority to the completion of feasibility studies for projects in areas that have experienced flooding or hurricane damage during the preceding 10 years, and (2) submit an analysis of the connection between such Corps projects and navigation and the protection of energy infrastructure.
People & committees
Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 12, 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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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 H.R.1769 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.