To authorize the Secretary of the Army to make beneficial use of dredged material for shoreline protection and restoration.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 16, 2002
Authorizes the Secretary of the Army, for purposes of shoreline protection and restoration, to dispose of dredged material from the construction, operation, or maintenance of a navigation project using a disposal method other than the least-cost disposal option if the Secretary determines that the additional cost of using the disposal method is justified by the benefits, including storm damage reduction, environmental, and recreation benefits. Requires disposal of dredged material to be initiated only upon the request of non-Federal interests and only after they have entered into a cooperative agreement to provide 35 percent of the costs associated with the disposal.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.5137 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.5137 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.5137 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.5137 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.