PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 5, 2002
Corps of Engineers Modernization and Improvement Act of 2002 - Directs the Secretary of the Army to report to specified congressional committees on deferred and inactive water resources construction projects, including regarding project purposes, costs, a cost-benefit analysis, and status.Amends the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 to provide for the deauthorization of such projects.Provides for the decommissioning of underused waterways in the Inland Waterways System, using economic and national interest criteria.Requires the Water Resources Council to prioritize water resource projects within their particular type (flood damage, navigation, environmental restoration) using national benefits and cost-benefit ratio (1.5 or greater) criteria. Deauthorizes certain projects, including certain unfunded environmental infrastructure projects and those concerning municipal, industrial, or agricultural water supply, and school construction.Requires a cost-benefit ratio of 1.5 or higher for water resources projects subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Provides for the deauthorization of certain projects not meeting such criterion.Directs the Secretary to revise the principles and guidelines of the Corps of Engineers concerning cost-benefit analysis, regional impacts, environmental restoration costs, and the incorporation of new analytical techniques, including those for risk.Establishes criteria for the review of a water resource project's reports and statements by an independent expert panel, including criteria regarding cost and the likelihood of significant adverse environmental impact.Revises inland waterway project cost-sharing requirements, including those for construction, operation and maintenance, flood damage reduction, beach replacement, and the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.Requires public access to water resources project information.
People & committees
Sen. Smith, Bob [R-NH] · R–NH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Environment and Public Works. Hearings held.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1539-1540)
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.1987 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.1987 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.1987 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.1987 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.