PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 21, 2015
Dam Rehabilitation and Repair Act of 2015
Amends the National Dam Safety Program Act to require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a program to provide grant assistance to states for use in rehabilitating publicly-owned dams that fail to meet minimum safety standards of the state or an Indian tribe and pose an unacceptable risk to the public (deficient dams).
Sets forth provisions regarding procedures for grant awards and fund allocation. Requires FEMA to: (1) require a state to provide an assurance that the owner of the dam to be rehabilitated has developed and will carry out a maintenance plan during the expected life of the dam, (2) require a recipient of a grant under this Act to comply with requirements applicable to contributions of federal funds under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and (3) develop a risk-based priority system for identifying deficient dams for which such grants may be made. Limits the federal share of rehabilitation costs to 75%.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits grant funds from being used to: (1) rehabilitate a federal dam, (2) perform routine operation or maintenance, (3) modify a dam to produce hydroelectric power, (4) increase water supply storage capacity, or (5) make any other modification that does not also improve dam safety.
Conditions the receipt of grants by a state upon the state following specified requirements applicable to contracts for architectural and engineering services when entering into contracts for services relating to dam rehabilitation. Provides that such contracts shall not be considered to confer a proprietary interest upon the United States.
Prohibits funds from being obligated for a project under this Act unless the steel, iron, and manufactured goods used for the project are produced in the United States. Authorizes waivers.
People & committees
Rep. Maloney, Sean Patrick [D-NY-18] · 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 Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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: Aug 12, 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.2489 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.2489 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.2489 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.2489 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.