PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 20, 2012
Local Modifications to Federal Flood Control Projects Act of 2012 - Amends the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 to direct the Secretary of the Army, upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, to grant permission to a local sponsor to construct an improvement to a flood control project in accordance with this Act.
Authorizes the Secretary to grant permission for such an improvement: (1) that is necessary for the project to provide a qualified level of protection when, in the Secretary's judgment, the proposed improvement does not permanently reduce the existing level of protection; or (2) that is associated with permanently increasing the level of protection provided by the project from the authorized level or permanently realigning the project to substantially increase or otherwise significantly alter the geographic area protected by the project when, in the Secretary's judgement, the improvement does not adversely affect the existing level of protection and does not transfer the hydraulic impact of the project beyond the standards that the Chief of Engineers applies to projects proposed for initial federal authorization. Defines "qualified level of protection" as the lesser of the authorized level or the level necessary to receive, maintain, or restore accreditation pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. Prohibits the Secretary from granting permission regarding such an improvement unless it is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications prepared and certified by a registered professional engineer.
Sets forth: (1) requirements for submission of an improvement application, (2) deadlines for action on such an application, (3) approval and disapproval procedures, and (4) procedures for administrative and judicial appeals of the disapproval of an application. Directs the Secretary to issue guidelines to facilitate and expedite the review of proposed improvements.
People & committees
Rep. Costello, Jerry F. [D-IL-12] · D–IL
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: 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.6450 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.6450 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.6450 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.6450 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.