To direct the Army Corps of Engineers to allow certain entities to use a portion of collected recreational user fees for administrative expenses and for the operations, maintenance, development of recreational facilities or management of natural resources.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 14, 2011
Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (WRDA) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to: (1) enter into cooperative agreements with non-federal public and private entities to provide for the maintenance, development, or construction of recreation facilities at water resource development projects under the Secretary's jurisdiction; and (2) permit any such entity to collect fees for the use of recreation sites and facilities, to retain up to 50% of the fees collected to pay the entity's administrative costs, and to reinvest the balance of the fees for the operation, maintenance, development, or construction of recreation facilities or the management of natural resources on any project lands at the lake or reservoir where such fees were collected.
Authorizes a local interest or nonprofit entity that has been granted a lease of lands at a public recreation area located at a lake or reservoir under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers, and that has entered into an agreement with the Corps to collect and reinvest 50% of the fees for operation, maintenance, development, or construction of recreation facilities and management of natural resources at on such lands, to retain up to 50% of the fees to pay administrative costs.
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.3223 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.3223 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.3223 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.3223 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.