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 · Mar 6, 2012
Upper Mississippi Conservation and River Protection Act of 2012 or the Upper Mississippi CARP Act - Directs the Chief of Engineers to: (1) study the feasibility of temporarily closing the lock at the Upper St. Anthony Falls Lock and Dam, or implementing control measures at the lock, including permanently closing the lock, modifying lock operations, or using an alternative technology barrier, to manage the threat of Asian carp traveling up the Mississippi River in Minnesota; and (2) assess the potential impacts, including environmental and economic impacts, of temporarily closing the lock or continuing to operate it and of implementing the control measures or not implementing such measures.
Authorizes the Chief to close the lock upon determining that closure is justified based on the assessment of potential impacts. Requires the Chief to close the lock upon determining that a live adult Asian carp has been captured above Lock and Dam 2 or that a juvenile Asian carp has been captured above Lock and Dam 4. 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
Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN] · D–MN
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.2164 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.2164 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.2164 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.2164 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.