PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to House Agriculture
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 25, 1997
Estuary Habitat Restoration Partnership Act of 1997 - Establishes the Estuary Habitat Restoration Collaborative Council, to be composed of specified Federal officials. Directs the Council to develop an estuary habitat restoration strategy to ensure a comprehensive approach to the selection and prioritization of estuary habitat restoration projects and the full coordination of Federal and non-Federal activities related to such restoration. Requires, as part of such strategy, the development of: (1) a framework for coordinating and streamlining existing Federal plans and programs; and (2) proposals to maximize incentives for public-private partnerships and to leverage Federal resources to encourage increased private sector involvement in such restoration. Sets forth factors to be considered by the Council in determining project selection and assistance eligibility. Authorizes a restoration project to be designated as a priority project if it meets selection criteria and: (1) it addresses a restoration goal identified in the strategy; (2) it is part of an approved Federal estuary management or habitat restoration plan; (3) the non-Federal share of the project exceeds 50 percent; and (4) there is a nonpoint source program upstream of the project that addresses upstream sources that would otherwise re-impair the restored habitat. Gives such projects a higher priority for funding. Permits the Council to pay up to 25 percent of the cost of interim actions of restoration activity, pending completion of the strategy. Prohibits selection of a project until non-Federal interests have entered into specified written cooperation agreements pertaining to water resources projects in accordance with the Flood Control Act of 1970. Requires such agreements to provide for project maintenance and monitoring. Authorizes appropriations for the Council. Requires non-Federal applicants for assistance to demonstrate that a project meets this Act's requirements and selection criteria. Limits the Federal share of assistance to between 25 and 65 percent of a project's cost. Raises the maximum limit to 75 percent of the cost in cases of demonstrated need. Authorizes the Council to use funds made available under this Act to pay the share of costs of estuary habitat restoration activities eligible for funding under other laws if such activities would also be eligible for funding under this Act. Directs the Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere to maintain a database of information on projects funded by the Council. Makes certain funds provided under the Water Resources Development Acts of 1986 and 1996 available to States and non-Federal persons in carrying out interim actions or projects under this Act. Authorizes appropriations. Requires the Secretary of the Army to give estuary habitat restoration projects the same consideration as irrigation, navigation, or flood control projects and to establish such restoration as a primary mission of the Army Corps of Engineers. Authorizes the Secretary to carry out such projects. Directs the Comptroller General to report to the Congress and the Secretary on the extent to which the Council needs additional personnel and administrative resources to carry out this Act, including recommendations for necessary additional funding.
People & committees
Sen. Chafee, John H. [R-RI] · R–RI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to House Agriculture
Referred to House Resources
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committees on Resources, and Agriculture, 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 House Transportation and Infrastructure
Held at the desk.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Unanimous Consent.
The committee substitute as amended agreed to by Unanimous Consent.
Measure laid before Senate by unanimous consent. (consideration: CR S12467-12477)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 507.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-273.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Reported to Senate by Senator Chafee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 105-273.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held. Hearings printed: S.Hrg. 105-819.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S9975-9976)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.1222 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 S.1222 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 S.1222 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 S.1222 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.