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 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jul 23, 2007
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Oregon Water Resources Management Act of 2007 - (Sec. 2) Amends the Oregon Resource Conservation Act of 1996 to: (1) replace references to the Deschutes River Basin Working Group with the Deschutes River Conservancy Working Group; (2) require the two representatives of private interests from irrigated agriculture on the Working Group to actively farm more than 100 acres of irrigated land and not be irrigation district managers; (3) direct the Bureau of Reclamation to pay up to a specified amount of the cost of performing projects proposed by the Working Group and approved by the Secretary of the Interior for FY2007-FY2016; and (4) authorize appropriations for Deschutes Basin ecosystem restoration projects for FY2007-FY2016.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to provide grants to, or enter into agreements with, tribal, state, and local governmental entities and the Associated Ditch Companies, Incorporated (ADC) to plan, design, and construct facilities needed to implement the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program as long as the Secretary ensures that: (1) the Program and activities meet the standards of Oregon's dam safety program; (2) ADC agrees to assume liability for any work performed or supervised with federal funds; and (3) the United States is not liable for damages arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to a facility rehabilitated or constructed with federal funds.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the federal share of the costs of activities authorized to 50%. Prohibits crediting against the federal share any expenditure made by the Bonneville Power Administration in the Wallowa River watershed or by individual agricultural producers in any federal commodity or conservation program. Requires the Secretary to comply with applicable Oregon water law. Prohibits the federal government from holding title to any facility rehabilitated or constructed or from being responsible for operation and maintenance of any such facility. Provides that activities funded in this section shall not be considered a supplemental or additional benefit under federal reclamation law. Authorizes appropriations. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this section 10 years after the date of enactment.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary, through the Bureau, to participate in the Water for Irrigation, Streams and the Economy Project water management feasibility study and environmental impact statement in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement Between City of Medford and Bureau of Reclamation for the Water for Irrigation, Streams, and the Economy Project. Authorizes appropriations. Sets the non-federal share at 50% of the Bureau's total costs in carrying out the study and environmental impact statement. Allows the non-federal share to be in the form of in-kind services. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this section 10 years after the date of enactment.
North Unit Irrigation District Act of 2007 - (Sec. 5) Modifies a repayment contract between the Secretary and the North Unit Irrigation District, Oregon, to permit the District to engage in, or take advantage of, conserved water projects authorized by Oregon law. Permits the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner, to renegotiate in the future with the District such contractual terms as the District directors deem necessary only upon their written request and the Commissioner's consent.
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 Agreed to by voice vote. (text as passed in House: CR H8197-8198)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text as passed in House: CR H8197-8198)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 495.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H8197-8199)
Mr. Grijalva moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
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.495 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.495 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.495 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.495 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.