PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1907-1910)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 13, 2007
Water Resources Planning and Modernization Act of 2007 - Directs: (1) the Water Resources Council to report to the President and Congress on U.S. vulnerability to damage from flooding and related storm damage, including the risks to human life and property and the comparative risks faced by different regions of the country; and (2) the Administration to submit a report responding to, and including proposals to implement, the Council's recommendations.
Requires the Council: (1) to submit initial and followup reports to Congress containing a prioritized list of Corps of Engineers water resources projects, based on specified criteria; and (2) in coordination with the National Academy of Sciences, to propose revisions to the planning principles and guidelines, regulations, and circulars of the Corps to improve the process by which the Corps analyzes and evaluates projects.
Includes as members of the Council the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Chairperson of the Council on Environmental Quality.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to appoint in the Office of the Secretary a Director of Independent Review. Subjects projects meeting specified guidelines concerning cost, state interest, adverse impact, or controversy to review by an independent panel of experts, including to ensure public health, safety, and welfare.
Requires the Secretary, to mitigate losses to flood damage reduction capabilities and fish and wildlife resulting from a water resources project, to ensure that mitigation for each project fully complies with the mitigation standards and policies established by each state in which the project is located. Sets forth mitigation plan requirements. Directs the Secretary to establish a mitigation tracking system.
People & committees
Sen. Feingold, Russell D. [D-WI] · D–WI
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1907-1910)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1906-1907)
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.564 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.564 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.564 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.564 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.