PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 391.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Apr 26, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the House reported version is repeated here.)
Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) to issue a special use authorization to the owners of a water storage, transport, or diversion facility located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Idaho for continued operation, maintenance, and reconstruction of such facility if it is determined that: (1) the facility was in existence on the date on which it was designated as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System; (2) the facility has been in continuous use to deliver water for beneficial use on the owner's non-federal land since the date designation; (3) the owner holds a valid water right for use of the water on such land under Idaho state law, with a priority date that predates such date; and (4) it is not practicable or feasible to relocate the facility to land outside of the wilderness and continue the beneficial use of water on the non-federal land.
Requires the Secretary, in a special use authorization under this Act, to: (1) allow the use of motorized equipment and mechanized transport for operation, maintenance, or reconstruction of a facility, if it is determined that the use is necessary to continue delivery of water to the non-federal land for beneficial uses and that the use of nonmotorized equipment and nonmechanized transport is impracticable or infeasible; and (2) preclude use of the facility for the storage, diversion, or transport of water in excess of the water right.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the Secretary, in such an authorization, to: (1) require or allow modification or relocation of a facility in the wilderness, as determined necessary, to reduce impacts to wilderness values if the beneficial use of water on the non-federal land is not diminished; and (2) require that the owner provide a reciprocal right of access across the non-federal property, in which case the owner shall receive market value for any right-of-way or other interest in real property conveyed to the United States. Permits the market value to be paid by the Secretary, in whole or in part, by the grant of a reciprocal right-of-way or by reduction of fees or other costs that may accrue to the owner in obtaining an authorization for water facilities.
People & committees
Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2] · R–ID
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 391.
Received in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 4/24/2012 H2047)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 4/24/2012 H2047)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2186)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Bishop (UT) objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2050.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H2047-2048)
Mr. Bishop (UT) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 304.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-437.
Reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-437.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. 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.2050 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.2050 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.2050 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.2050 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.