PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 25, 2011
Natomas Basin Flood Protection Improvements Act of 2011 - Modifies the project for flood damage reduction, American and Sacramento Rivers, California, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to construct improvements to flood damage reduction facilities adjacent to those rivers in the vicinity of Sacramento, substantially in accordance with the report of the Chief of Engineers entitled "American River Watershed (Common Features) Project, Natomas Basin, Sacramento and Sutter Counties, California," dated December 30, 2010, at a specified cost.
Requires the nonfederal interest to receive credit for expenses and in-kind contributions incurred for planning, design, and construction of the project and acquisition of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas for the project. Requires such credit to be applied toward the nonfederal share of the project or of any other project for which the nonfederal interest has entered into a cost-sharing agreement with the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-5] · 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.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 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.433 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.433 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.433 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.433 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.