PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1858-1859)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 14, 2013
Water Infrastructure Now Public-Private Partnership Act or the WIN P3 Act - Directs the Chief of Engineers to establish a pilot program to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and project delivery efficiency of allowing non-federal interests to carry out authorized flood damage reduction, hurricane and storm damage reduction, and navigation projects. Requires the Chief: (1) to identify not more than 15 projects authorized for construction; (2) to develop a detailed project management plan for each identified project that outlines the scope, budget, design, and construction resource requirements necessary for the non-federal interest to execute the project or an element of the project; (3) to enter into a project partnership agreement with the non-federal interest at such interest's request to provide full project management control for construction of the project or element in accordance with plans approved by the Chief; (4) following execution of such agreement, to transfer specified amounts to the non-federal interest to carry out project construction; and (5) to regularly monitor and audit each such project being constructed by a non-federal interest.
Sets forth restrictions on projects selected. Authorizes the Chief to: (1) provide technical assistance to the non-federal interests for compensation, and (2) waive or modify applicable federal regulations if doing so would provide public and financial benefits.
Directs the Chief, before entering into a project partnership agreement, to enter into an arrangement with an independent third party to conduct an assessment and provide justification that the proposed agreement would represent a better public and financial benefit than a similar transaction using public funding.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Terminates authority to commence a project under this Act five years after its enactment.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
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 S1858-1859)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S1856-1857)
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.566 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.566 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.566 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.566 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.