PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Riley, Josh [D-NY-19] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 7, 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 H.R.10635 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 H.R.10635 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 H.R.10635 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 H.R.10635 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-09-28 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposal would add a category called “covered dams” to federal law concerning rehabilitation of aging watershed structures. It would include dams meeting an existing high-hazard eligibility definition, plus dams in towns with fewer than 5,000 people whose embankments are more than half compacted earth by volume. The surrounding law would determine how this change affects access to rehabilitation assistance.
2. Rehabilitation of structural measures near, at, or past their evaluated life expectancy Section 14(a) of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting a covered dam or before a work of improvement;
(4) Covered dam The term covered dam means— (A) an eligible high hazard potential dam (as such term is defined in section 2 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467)); or (B) any dam— (i) located in a town with a population of less than 5,000 people; and (ii) for which more than 50 percent of the total volume of the embankment of the dam is formed of compacted earth layers.
Section 1 would name the legislation the Saving Rural Reservoirs Act.
1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Saving Rural Reservoirs Act.
Section 2 would insert “a covered dam or” before “a work of improvement” in section 14(a)(2) of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act. This is a proposed textual expansion; the bill does not reproduce the paragraph being amended.
Section 14(a) of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (16 U.S.C. 1012(a)) is amended— (1) in paragraph (2), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting a covered dam or before a work of improvement;
A dam could qualify as a covered dam through either of two routes: meeting the referenced definition of an eligible high hazard potential dam, or meeting both the small-town and compacted-earth requirements. The second route requires a town population strictly below 5,000 and compacted earth layers forming strictly more than 50 percent of the embankment's total volume.
(4) Covered dam The term covered dam means— (A) an eligible high hazard potential dam (as such term is defined in section 2 of the National Dam Safety Program Act (33 U.S.C. 467)); or (B) any dam— (i) located in a town with a population of less than 5,000 people; and (ii) for which more than 50 percent of the total volume of the embankment of the dam is formed of compacted earth layers.
The supplied action snapshot, updated October 7, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Agriculture on September 28, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-07T14:55:11Z. 2026-09-28: Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. 2026-09-28: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-09-28. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No separate preferential exception or narrow carve-out was identified beyond the proposal's general coverage criteria for its intended beneficiaries. This conclusion is limited to the complete supplied introduced text and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 7, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI