H.R. 1769: Recognizing the National Benefits of Flood Protection Act of 2013

113th Congress · introduced 2013-04-26 · Water Resources Development · Latest: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

federal

Follow this bill, step by step

Where it came from: introduced 2013-04-26 · official record
Who proposed it: Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · what a sponsor is
What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
Where it stands now: Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.

What does this mean?

Official title

Recognizing the National Benefits of Flood Protection Act of 2013

Plain summary

Recognizing the National Benefits of Flood Protection Act of 2013 - Requires a feasibility study for a flood, hurricane, or storm damage reduction project to include calculations of the anticipated: (1) reduction in damage to public and private property and infrastructure; (2) direct and indirect economic benefits, including from potential reductions in national and regional economic volatility, disruptions, and losses; and (3) benefits to public safety, including protection of evacuation routes. Authorizes the non-federal interest for such a project to submit to the Chief of Engineers a request for a project review if the Chief: (1) determines that the project is not feasible, (2) issues an unfavorable report for the project, or (3) identifies the feasibility study for the project as inactive. Directs the Chief to establish a panel to conduct such reviews for each Corps of Engineers division not later than 60 days after the first request for a review of a project within that division is submitted. Requires such panel to conduct a review of: (1) the feasibility study for the project; (2) the adequacy and accessibility of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used in preparing such study; (3) public comments on the project; and (4) any additional information submitted by the non-federal interest as part of the review request. Requires: (1) the panel to submit a final report containing an economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the feasibility study and a determination of the project's feasibility; and (2) the Chief, if the panel determines that a project is feasible, to issue a favorable report for the project. Directs the Chief to: (1) give priority to the completion of feasibility studies for projects in areas that have experienced flooding or hurricane damage during the preceding 10 years, and (2) submit an analysis of the connection between such Corps projects and navigation and the protection of energy infrastructure.

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.

What a vote does

A “Yea” vote

If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.

A “Nay” vote

If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.

PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).

What does this mean? (plain words)

Official text

Recognizing the National Benefits of Flood Protection Act of 2013

Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)

AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text

No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.

Limited to a few requests an hour per person.

The strongest published arguments

Arguments for (supporters)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Arguments against (opponents)

Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

Alternatives

Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.

How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes

Officials and money

Sponsor: Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · 0 cosponsors

Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.

No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.

Words on this page, explained (1)

Public comment: A chance for anyone to tell a government agency what they think about a proposed rule or plan before it is final. Agencies must consider the comments they receive.

Plain meanings written from linked sources. All words.

Sources

Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
Congress.gov
Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-113hr1769.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/113/hr>

Record fed-us-cong113-hr1769 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong113 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong113