A complete substitute amendment, v2 fundamentally redefines the scope of the Glen Canyon Dam feasibility study. It broadens the study from a specific selective water withdrawal system to a wider analysis of alternatives for addressing downstream invasive species, adds new consultation partners, and introduces a detailed reporting requirement to Congress. The original requirement for power contractor concurrence for construction was removed.
A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Lee, Mike [R-UT]
- Committees
- Energy and Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 17, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates a federally funded study to explore infrastructure solutions for invasive species and hydropower optimization at Glen Canyon Dam, with a clear timeline and a path for potential implementation.
What it actually does
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on alternatives, including a thermal curtain or selective water withdrawal system, to address downstream invasive species and optimize hydropower generation at Glen Canyon Dam. The study must be completed within 18 months, followed by a report to Congress. If an alternative is deemed feasible, the Secretary is authorized to initiate its design and construction.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill is a crucial step towards safeguarding the ecological health of the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam by mitigating invasive species, while simultaneously enhancing the efficiency and reliability of hydropower generation. They emphasize that a thorough feasibility study is necessary to identify the most effective and sustainable solutions, ensuring that future actions are science-based and well-informed, and that the bill provides a clear, timely framework for addressing these critical issues.
Opponents contend
Critics of similar study mandates sometimes express concerns that they can be costly without guaranteeing a tangible outcome, potentially diverting resources from other pressing water management issues in the Colorado River Basin. While direct opposition to a study itself is uncommon, some might argue that the specific alternatives outlined in the bill are too narrow, or that the discretion granted to the Secretary for potential future construction without further explicit congressional authorization could lead to unforeseen costs or impacts.
The bill is concise and straightforward, making it easily readable and understandable within a short timeframe, allowing for efficient review by interested parties.
Section 1(a)
Mandate for Feasibility Study on Invasive Species and Hydropower
This provision directs the Secretary of the Interior, through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a comprehensive feasibility study. The study will analyze various alternatives, including hydrological modeling, aimed at addressing the problem of downstream invasive species at Glen Canyon Dam. It also seeks to optimize hydropower generation when cold water is released from the dam, requiring consultation with several key federal agencies and Colorado River Basin stakeholders.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that this provision is essential for developing science-based solutions to critical environmental and operational challenges at Glen Canyon Dam. By mandating a comprehensive study with broad consultation, it ensures that any future actions are well-informed, effective, and consider the diverse interests of the Colorado River Basin.
Critics contend
While a study mandate generally faces little direct opposition, some might express concerns about the potential for the study to be overly broad or to delay more immediate actions. Others might question the specific consultation requirements, suggesting they could complicate or slow down the study process.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances the need for thorough scientific investigation and broad stakeholder input with the urgency of addressing environmental and energy challenges. This can create tension between comprehensive analysis and timely action.
Section 1(b)
Specific Alternatives for Study
This section specifies that the feasibility study may include an analysis of particular infrastructure upgrades, such as a thermal curtain or a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. These alternatives are to be evaluated for their potential to optimize hydropower generation while simultaneously preventing the entrainment of invasive species, aligning with existing long-term management plans and the Grand Canyon Protection Act.
Section 1(c)
Authority for Design and Construction Post-Study
This provision grants the Secretary of the Interior the authority to initiate the design, construction, and related activities of any alternative identified as feasible under reclamation laws, following the completion of the feasibility study. This includes the ability to take necessary policy actions that are permissible under those laws.
Section 1(d) and (e)
Feasibility Report Requirements and Deadlines
These sections outline the specific content required for the summarized feasibility study report, including an analysis of alternatives, identification of a recommended alternative, cost allocation, and an assessment of impacts on hydropower. The Secretary must also provide a recommendation on the technical and financial feasibility of the alternative and whether it should be authorized for construction. The study must be completed within 18 months of enactment, and the report submitted to the Senate and House Committees on Natural Resources within 90 days of the study's completion.
Section 1(f)
Funding Mechanism for Feasibility Study
This section stipulates that the costs associated with the feasibility study will be covered by the Secretary of the Interior using appropriated federal funds. Crucially, these federal funds are designated as nonreimbursable and nonreturnable to the United States. Furthermore, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and Colorado River Storage Project power contractors, must identify the specific sources of these available funds within 90 days of the bill's enactment.
Specifies that any federal funds made available to carry out the feasibility study are nonreimbursable and nonreturnable to the United States.
Section 1(f)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative language for federal funding, clarifying the financial responsibility. It is not necessarily evasive, but it dictates a significant financial aspect.
Case for: Supporters argue this ensures the study can proceed without financial burden on local entities or power contractors, making it more likely to be completed in a timely manner.
Case against: Critics might argue that this provision means federal taxpayers fully bear the cost of the study, even if specific regional beneficiaries are identified for any future projects resulting from the study.
Estimated impact: Shifts the financial burden of the feasibility study entirely to the federal government.
Clarifies that nothing in this section affects the criteria for the coordinated long-range operations of Colorado River reservoirs pursuant to section 602 of the Colorado River Basin Project Act.
Section 1(g)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative 'savings clause' or 'effect clause' to clarify the scope of the bill and prevent unintended conflicts with existing, complex federal law. It is not evasive but crucial for legal interpretation.
Case for: Proponents argue this clause provides essential legal clarity, assuring stakeholders that the study and potential future actions under this bill will not disrupt the broader, intricate legal framework governing Colorado River operations, which is critical for regional stability and water allocation.
Case against: There is no direct 'case against' this clarifying language, as it serves to prevent unintended consequences. However, some might argue it highlights the limited scope of the bill in addressing the larger, systemic challenges facing the Colorado River Basin.
Estimated impact: Ensures legal continuity and avoids unintended conflicts with established Colorado River management criteria.
States that the authority provided by this section expires on the date that is 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
Section 1(h)
Why it matters:This is a common 'sunset clause' in legislation, intended to provide a time limit for the authorized actions. It ensures that the mandate does not continue indefinitely if not acted upon, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Supporters argue this clause encourages timely action by the Secretary, ensuring that the feasibility study and any subsequent design/construction initiation occur within a reasonable timeframe. It prevents the mandate from lingering indefinitely.
Case against: Critics might argue that a 5-year window could be too short for a complex process involving a feasibility study, report, and the initiation of design and construction for a major infrastructure project, especially if unforeseen delays occur. This could necessitate new legislation for reauthorization.
Estimated impact: Establishes a strict time limit for the Secretary of the Interior to complete the study and initiate any recommended actions.