PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 7, 2021
This bill revises the Redbank and Fancher Creeks flood control project in California to authorize the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to allow a nonfederal interest to establish conservation pools in the Big Dry Creek Reservoir and the Fancher Creek Reservoir.
Under this bill, a nonfederal interest that intends to establish a conservation pool must (1) perform any dam safety study that the USACE deems appropriate for determining whether the pool will affect flood protections or injure the public, and (2) submit the plan to the USACE for establishing and engineering the pool so it will not affect flood protections or injure the public.
For these pools, the USACE may accept and expend funds provided by the nonfederal interest for reviewing any study, engineering, or plan to ensure compliance with federal standards. Further, the USACE may revise the water control manual for the flood control project.
The bill requires the nonfederal cost share to be 90%.
People & committees
Rep. Costa, Jim [D-CA-16] · D–CA
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: Jan 3, 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.3022 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.3022 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.3022 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.3022 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.