PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jun 5, 2012
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on April 16, 2012. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Central Oregon Jobs and Water Security Act - (Sec. 2) Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to modify the boundary of the Crooked River, Oregon. Requires the developer for any hydropower development at Bowman Dam to analyze any impacts to the Outstanding Remarkable Values of the Wild and Scenic River that may be caused by such development and propose mitigation for such impacts as part of any license application submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
(Sec. 3) Increases (from 10 to 17 cubic feet per second) the minimum release that shall be maintained from the Prineville Reservoir for the benefit of downstream fish life. Requires 7 of the 17 cubic feet per second release to serve as mitigation for the city of Prineville groundwater pumping, as determined necessary for any given year by the city, including any shaping of the release of the up to 7 cubic feet per second to coincide with the city's groundwater pumping as may be required by the state of Oregon. Authorizes the Secretary of the Army to make applications to that state in conjunction with that city to protect these supplies instream.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Directs the city to make payment to the Secretary for that portion of the minimum release that actually serves as mitigation under Oregon law. Authorizes the Secretary to contract exclusively with the city for additional amounts in the future at the city's request.
(Sec. 4) Directs the Secretary, on a "first fill" priority basis, to store in and release from the Reservoir: (1) 68,273 acre feet of water annually to fulfill all 16 Bureau of Reclamation contracts existing as of January 1, 2011; (2) up to 2,740 acre feet of water annually to supply the McKay Creek lands; and (3) up to 10,000 acre feet of water annually to the North Unit Irrigation District, upon request, pursuant to a Temporary Water Service Contract.
(Sec. 5) Authorizes any landowner within Ochoco Irrigation District, Oregon, to repay construction costs of project facilities allocated to that landowner's lands within that District. Requires the Secretary of the Interior, upon the request of a landowner who has repaid project construction costs, to provide certification of freedom from ownership and pricing limitations.
Modifies the District's reclamation contracts, on approval of the District directors, to: (1) authorize the use of water for instream purposes in order for the District to engage in, or take advantage of, conserved water projects and temporary instream leasing as authorized by Oregon law; (2) include within the district boundary approximately 2,742 acres in the vicinity of McKay Creek; (3) classify approximately 685 of such acres as irrigable; and (4) provide the District with stored water from Prineville Reservoir for supplying such 685 acres, contingent on the transfer of existing appurtenant McKay Creek water rights to instream use and the state's issuance of water rights for the use of stored water.
People & committees
Rep. Walden, Greg [R-OR-2] · R–OR
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H3432-3433)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H3432-3433)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 2060.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H3432-3434)
Mr. Hastings (WA) moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 305.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-438.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 112-438.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.2060 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.2060 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.2060 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.2060 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.