PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2013
Upper Mississippi Conservation and River Protection Act of 2013 or the Upper Mississippi CARP Act - Directs the Chief of Engineers to study the feasibility of: (1) temporarily closing the lock at the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam (located on Mississippi River mile 853.9 in Minneapolis, Minnesota) to manage the threat of Asian carp traveling up the Mississippi River in Minnesota, and (2) implementing control measures at such lock and Lock and Dam 1 (located on Mississippi River mile 847.8 in Minneapolis, Minnesota), including permanently closing the locks, modifying lock operations, or using an alternative technology barrier, to manage such threat. Requires the Chief to assess the potential impacts, including environmental and economic impacts: (1) of temporary closure of such lock and of continuing to operate it, and (2) of implementing each of such control measures and of not implementing such measures.
Authorizes the Chief to close such lock upon determining that closure is justified based on the assessment of potential impacts. Requires the Chief to close such lock upon determining that a live adult Asian carp has been captured above Lock and Dam 2 (located on Mississippi River mile 815.2 upstream of Hastings, Minnesota) or that a juvenile Asian carp has been captured above Lock and Dam 4 (located on Mississippi River mile 752.8 in Alma, Wisconsin). Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, upon determining that an Asian carp has been captured at such a location, to transmit to the Chief a petition for closure of such lock. Allows the Chief to reopen the lock upon determining that adequate measures are in place to manage the threat.
Directs the Council on Environmental Quality to incorporate the Upper Mississippi River and tributaries, the Minnesota River, and the St. Croix River into the Asian Carp Control Strategy Framework of the Council.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Expresses the sense of Congress that federal agencies researching Asian carp control technologies should partner with state and local shareholders, giving priority to collaborative partnerships in which such shareholders contribute to the cost of the research.
People & committees
Rep. Ellison, Keith [D-MN-5] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans, and Insular Affairs.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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 12, 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.709 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.709 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.709 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.709 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.