PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 11, 2023
Protect Our Water Rights Act
This bill requires the Bureau of Reclamation to modify the operation of water service contracts for the Central Valley Project (CVP) in California and the Klamath River Basin Reclamation Project in California and Oregon.
Reclamation owns and operates the CVP, a federal water project consisting of a network of dams, reservoirs, and other facilities. CVP water is delivered to users that have contracts with Reclamation, but dry conditions have resulted in Reclamation reducing the water allocations for contracted water supplies.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
This bill requires Reclamation to allocate to existing agricultural water service contractors within the CVP's Sacramento River Watershed (1) 100% of the contracted amount of water in a wet or above normal year, (2) not less than 75% of the contracted amount in a below normal year, and (3) not less than 50% of the contracted amount in a dry or critically dry year.
Reclamation must hold at least one in-person field hearing in each county where a CVP water service contractor is located in the period between the project's initial water allocation and final water allocation announcement.
The bill modifies the share of operation and maintenance costs paid by CVP water service contractors.
Reclamation must also operate the Klamath River Basin Reclamation Project, a similar federal water project, so that all of the water in Upper Klamath Lake above a certain elevation is solely for agricultural and refuge purposes. Reclamation must conduct these operations in a manner that maximizes water storage in the lake, to the extent practicable.
People & committees
Rep. LaMalfa, Doug [R-CA-1] · R–CA
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 Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries.
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: Dec 31, 2024. 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.289 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.289 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.289 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.289 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.