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 · Feb 15, 2017
This bill directs the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to operate the federal water resources projects on the Apalachicola, Chattahoochee, and Flint Rivers in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia in a manner that ensures the maintenance of freshwater flows.
The term "freshwater flows" is defined as the quality, quantity, timing, and variability of freshwater flows required to: (1) support and reestablish the ecological integrity of the rivers, commercial and recreational fisheries dependent on freshwater flows into Apalachicola Bay and adjacent waters, and thriving and diverse fish, wildlife, and plant populations similar to those found prior to construction of the projects; (2) restore and recover species that are endangered, threatened, or at risk; and (3) prevent significantly harmful adverse impacts to the Chattahoochee and Apalachicola River ecosystems.
The Corps of Engineers must enter into an arrangement for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to conduct a study that evaluates existing data related to freshwater flows and provides recommendations on how to maintain such flows.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The Corps shall not issue a final water control manual based on the final environmental impact statement titled "Update of the Water Control Manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia and a Water Supply Storage Assessment," dated December 2016, but shall: (1) issue revised water control manuals for such projects that ensure the maintenance of freshwater flows, considering the findings of NOAA's study; (2) ensure that operational modifications needed to maintain freshwater flows are achieved while providing system-wide balance in conservation storage through the maintenance of water levels in the same action zone for each of the project reservoirs; (3) enter into an arrangement for the National Academy of Sciences to carry out an independent peer review of each revised manual; and (4) obtain written approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, and the U.S. Geological Survey of each manual developed before a final manual may be issued.
People & committees
Sen. Nelson, Bill [D-FL] · D–FL
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.
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.398 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.398 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.398 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.398 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.