To direct the Secretary of the Army to provide for modification of certain Federal water resources development projects on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 21, 2015
Directs the Department of the Army to operate the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint federal water resources projects on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia in a manner that ensures the maintenance of freshwater flows.
Defines "freshwater flows" to mean the quality, quantity, timing, and variability of freshwater flows required to: (1) support and reestablish the ecological integrity of the rivers, commercial and recreational fisheries dependent on freshwater flows into Apalachicola Bay and adjacent waters, and thriving and diverse fish, wildlife, and plant populations having species composition, diversity, adaptability, and functional organization similar to those found prior to construction of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint projects; (2) restore and recover species that are endangered, threatened, or at risk; and (3) prevent significantly harmful adverse impacts to the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola River ecosystems.
Requires the Army to: (1) complete the ongoing revision of the water control manuals for such projects and issue revised manuals that ensure the maintenance of freshwater flows; (2) ensure that operational modifications needed to maintain freshwater flows are achieved while providing system-wide balance in conservation storage through the maintenance of water levels within the same action zone for each of the project reservoirs; (3) enter into an arrangement for the National Academy of Sciences to carry out an independent peer review of each revised manual; and (4) obtain written approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey of each manual developed before a final manual may be issued.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 3, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.2492 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.2492 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.2492 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.2492 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.