Two Democrats this week are planning to use a costly legislative package of water projects as the vehicle for the Senate’s first debate on global warming in the 110th Congress.

John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin plan to offer an amendment to the Water Resources Development Act (S 1248) that would require the Army Corps of Engineers to plan for the impact of a warming climate on water projects. The bill is slated to move to the Senate floor as early as Tuesday.

An aide to Kerry said Monday it was unclear whether efforts to limit amendments would preclude the senator from offering the proposal, but said Kerry will offer it if he has the chance.

The amendment would do nothing to put the brakes on climate change, such as mandating a cap on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. But if it were adopted, it would put the Senate on record in support of scientific predictions that global warming may lead to rising sea levels, droughts and more intense storms.

The Kerry-Feingold amendment would require the corps to take into account the latest scientific projections of climate science when planning how to proceed on navigation, flood-control and coastal restoration projects. Supporters say the plan would mandate consideration of the costs and benefits associated with the loss and protection of wetlands, flood plains and other systems that may be vulnerable to warmer temperatures.

For instance, because wetlands serve as a buffer between land and water and can mitigate the intensity of hurricanes, the amendment would require the corps to consider reconstructing wetlands in lieu of structural barriers.

“We know we’re going to have problems, so let’s make sure we’re not hurting those very systems that we are going to desperately need in the future,” said Melissa Samet, senior director of water resources for the environmental group American Rivers.

With the Democratic leadership declaring legislation to combat global warming a top priority, lawmakers in both chambers are trying to determine the best course for addressing the issue. So far, there is no consensus on a climate-change bill.

Action on the Kerry-Feingold amendment would mark the first time the Senate has debated global warming since 2005, when the Senate rejected comprehensive, economywide controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, the Senate adopted a non-binding resolution calling for mandatory action to control greenhouse gases.

The amendment’s prospects in the Senate are unclear. Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken advocate of capping greenhouse gas emissions, is still reviewing all amendments to the water bill, which would authorize Army Corps of Engineers water projects, her spokesman said.

Boxer and the committee’s ranking Republican, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, have worked closely to bring the bill to the floor. But Inhofe is a ferocious opponent of any legislation addressing man-made climate change, which he has labeled a “hoax,” and he would probably try to derail the amendment.

“Any attempt to raise global-warming amendments at this time would jeopardize efforts to pass this critically important bill,’’ said Matt Dempsey, press secretary for Republicans on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Officials that rely on waterways for their industries say the Kerry-Feingold plan may duplicate existing requirements that the corps weigh environmental impacts when planning projects.

“The principles and guidelines that serve as the foundation of the corps’ planning process are broadly written to encompass both economic and environmental objectives,” said John Doyle, vice president of government relations for the Waterways Council, an industry group.

Several other amendments are expected to be offered to the bill.

Feingold plans to renew an effort from last year to establish a commission that would develop recommendations on the country’s most-needed water projects, an effort to get Congress to prioritize which of a long list of backlogged projects should be funded first.

The Senate rejected a similar amendment last year, in a bill that passed the chamber but was never reconciled with the House version in conference. Supporters hope changes that give lawmakers more influence in developing the commission will win more support.

Also, fiscal conservatives may try to reduce the bill’s costs. Last week, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would top $31 billion, more than twice the House version, making it the most costly water resources measure Congress has ever considered.

In light of that report, staff and lawmakers have been trying to trim the costs. One senior aide said that after revisions, the cost will drop below the $15 billion price tag of the House-passed bill (HR 1495).

John Hart, a spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn, said the Oklahoma Republican was concerned about the price tag and other “pork barrel” projects, such as an authorization of a visitor center in Louisiana.

Hart said Coburn had not ruled out using procedural moves to block the bill.