PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 20, 2009
Providing the Utmost safety Measures to the Permanent Protection System in New Orleans, Louisiana or the PUMPPS NOLA Act of 2009 - Modifies the project for permanent pumps and canal modifications at Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana, to direct the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, to: (1) construct a pump station and optimized diversion from Hoey's Basin to the Mississippi River to help reduce storm water flow into the 17th Street canal; (2) construct an optimized diversion through the Florida Avenue canal for discharging water into the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal; (3) construct new, permanent pump stations near the lakefront on the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue canals to provide for future flow capacity; (4) deepen, widen within each existing right-of-way, and line the bottom and side slopes of the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue canals to allow for a gravity flow of storm water to the pump stations at the lakefront; (5) modify or replace bridges close or adjacent to the 17th Street, Orleans Avenue, and London Avenue canals; (6) remove existing levees and floodwalls that line each side of such canals down to ground grade, if the Secretary determines it to be appropriate; (7) decommission or bypass the interior pump stations of the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans that are located at each such canal to maintain the water surface differential across the existing pumping stations until all systems and features are in place to allow for a fully functional system at a lowered canal water surface elevation; and (8) decommission and remove the interim control structures that are located at each such canal.
Conditions initiation of such project on the state of Louisiana agreeing to: (1) pay all costs arising from the operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of each completed project component; and (2) hold the U.S. harmless from any claim or damage that may arise from carrying out the project, except with regard to the federal government's negligence.
People & committees
Sen. Vitter, David [R-LA] · R–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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.1471 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.1471 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.1471 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.1471 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.