PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Sep 25, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on September 6, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Oregon Water Resources Management Act of 2006 - (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 total amount of $2 million for each of FY2006 through FY2015 for 50% of the cost of performing projects proposed by the Working Group and approved by the Secretary of the Interior; and (4) authorize appropriations for Deschutes Basin ecosystem restoration projects for FY2006-FY2015.
(Sec. 3) Authorizes the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to provide grants to, or enter into cooperative or other agreements with, tribal, state, and local governmental entities and the Associated Ditch Companies, Incorporated (ADC) (nonprofit corporation that operates the Wallowa Lake Dam) to plan, design, and construct facilities needed to implement the Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation Program. Directs the Secretary, as a condition of providing funds, to ensure that: (1) the Rehabilitation Program meets the standards of the dam safety program of Oregon; (2) ADC agrees to assume liability for any work performed or supervised with federal funds provided to it under this section; and (3) the United States shall not be liable for damages arising out of any act relating to a facility rehabilitated or constructed with federal funds provided under this Act, both while and after activities are conducted using such funds. Limits the federal share of the cost of activities authorized under this section to 50%. Prohibits the federal government from holding title to, or being responsible for the operation and maintenance of, any facility rehabilitated or constructed under this section. Authorizes appropriations. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this section 10 years after its enactment.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary, acting 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, dated July 2, 2004. Authorizes appropriations. Sets the non-federal share at 50% of the Bureau's costs in carrying out this section. Permits the non-federal share to be in the form of certain in-kind services. Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this section 10 years after its enactment.
(Sec. 5) North Unit Irrigation District Act of 2006 - 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. Authorizes the Secretary to renegotiate such contract terms as the District directors determine to be necessary, only upon the written request of the District directors and the consent of the Commissioner.
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.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Received in the Senate.
The title of the measure was amended. Agreed to without objection.
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 H6940-6941)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H6940-6941)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 5079.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H6940-6941)
Mr. Renzi moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 376.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-636.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Resources. H. Rept. 109-636.
Ordered to be Reported in the Nature of a Substitute (Amended) by Unanimous Consent.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water and Power Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on 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.5079 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.5079 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.5079 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.5079 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.