What changed between these versions
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.
Overview
The bill underwent extensive changes, effectively a complete rewrite of its sole operative section. · v2 significantly broadens the scope of the mandated feasibility study, expands stakeholder consultation, introduces new reporting requirements, and modifies the decision-making process for potential project implementation.
The most significant change is the complete replacement of the bill's operative text, transforming the directive from a specific study on a "selective water withdrawal system" to a broader analysis of "alternatives (including infrastructure upgrades) to address downstream invasive species" at Glen Canyon Dam. This expansion of scope is accompanied by new consultation requirements involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Colorado River Basin States. Additionally, v2 removes the need for Colorado River Storage Project power contractor concurrence for construction and mandates a detailed feasibility report to Congress, while also adding a termination of authority clause.
Major additions
v2 adds the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the Colorado River Basin States as mandatory consultation partners for the feasibility study.
This significantly expands the range of expertise and stakeholder perspectives that must be considered during the study, potentially leading to a more comprehensive analysis and broader consensus on proposed solutions.
This new subsection explicitly states that the alternatives analyzed under the feasibility study may include a thermal curtain or a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam.
This broadens the potential solutions considered beyond just a selective water withdrawal system, allowing for a wider array of infrastructure upgrades to address invasive species. It also clarifies that the selective water withdrawal system is one option among others, not the sole focus.
v2 introduces a new requirement for the Secretary to develop a summarized feasibility study report after completing the study. This report must include an analysis of alternatives, identification of the recommended alternative, cost allocation, major features, impact on hydropower, and a recommendation on technical/financial feasibility and authorization for construction.
This creates a formal reporting mechanism to Congress, providing detailed findings and recommendations that were not explicitly required in v1. It ensures transparency and provides a basis for future legislative or administrative action.
This new subsection states that the authority provided by this section expires 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act.
This imposes a time limit on the Secretary's authority to act under this section, ensuring that the feasibility study and any subsequent actions are completed within a defined timeframe or require reauthorization.
Deletions
v1 stated that if a selective water withdrawal system alternative was found feasible, the Secretary may begin compliance and construction if the Colorado River Storage Project power contractors concur with the alternative chosen.
The removal of this clause eliminates the requirement for power contractor concurrence before the Secretary can proceed with compliance and construction of a chosen alternative. This shifts decision-making authority more directly to the Secretary of the Interior.
Modifications
The Secretary is now required to consider a wider range of solutions beyond just a selective water withdrawal system, potentially leading to more diverse and comprehensive recommendations for addressing invasive species and hydropower optimization.
Before
Directed a feasibility study on "a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam to optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water from Glen Canyon Dam, while also preventing entrainment of invasive species."
After
Directs a feasibility study "to analyze alternatives (including infrastructure upgrades) to address downstream invasive species at Glen Canyon Dam." It retains the purpose of optimizing hydropower generation and preventing entrainment of invasive species, but now as a potential outcome of the broader alternatives.
The Secretary gains more direct authority to proceed with the implementation of a feasible alternative without needing explicit agreement from power contractors, streamlining the process for potential project advancement.
Before
Stated that if a selective water withdrawal system alternative was feasible, the Secretary may, if power contractors concur, begin compliance and construction.
After
States that if an alternative studied under subsection (a) is feasible, the Secretary may initiate design, construction, and associated activities of, as applicable, the recommended alternative, including any necessary policy actions allowable under the reclamation laws.
While both versions aim to clarify that the study does not alter existing Colorado River operational frameworks, v2 updates the specific legal reference, potentially aligning it with more current or foundational legal texts governing the Colorado River.
Before
Stated that nothing in the section affects the post-2026 Colorado River reservoir operations guidelines and strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
After
States that nothing in the 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 (Public Law 90-537; 82 Stat. 900).
Scope
Complete substitute — Changes are concentrated in the single operative section of the bill, which was entirely replaced. — Yes, v2 represents a meaningful change in policy direction by broadening the scope of the mandated study from a specific technological solution to a comprehensive analysis of various alternatives for addressing a broader environmental and operational challenge. — The changes primarily affect the directive for the feasibility study itself and its implementation. However, the new consultation requirements expand the interaction with other federal agencies and state governments, and the updated "Effect" clause clarifies interaction with foundational Colorado River law.
Impact analysis
Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation)
Procedural change and expanded responsibility, with increased autonomy in implementation but also increased reporting and a time limit.
The Secretary's mandate for the feasibility study has expanded from a specific system to a broader range of alternatives for addressing invasive species. The Secretary also gains the ability to initiate design and construction without power contractor concurrence, but is now required to produce a detailed feasibility report and operates under a 5-year termination of authority.
Colorado River Storage Project power contractors
Loss of direct control/veto power over construction decisions.
In v1, their concurrence was required for the Secretary to begin compliance and construction of a feasible selective water withdrawal system. In v2, this concurrence requirement is removed.
Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Director of the United States Geological Survey, and the Colorado River Basin States
Gained a formal consultation role, increasing their influence and input on the study's direction and findings.
These entities are newly included as mandatory consultation partners for the feasibility study.
Stakeholders concerned with downstream invasive species at Glen Canyon Dam
Potential for more diverse and effective solutions to be studied and implemented.
The feasibility study's scope has broadened to consider a wider array of alternatives (including a thermal curtain) beyond just a selective water withdrawal system.