PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.
H.R.875 / 115th Congress

Bureau of Reclamation Water Project Streamlining Act

Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2017

Bureau of Reclamation Water Project Streamlining Act

This bill sets forth provisions governing feasibility studies for water projects initiated by the Department of the Interior under the Reclamation Act of 1902 (project studies).

A project study initiated after enactment of this bill must: (1) result in the completion of a final feasibility report within three years; (2) have a maximum federal cost of $3 million; and (3) ensure that personnel from the local project area, region, and headquarters levels of the Bureau of Reclamation concurrently conduct the required review. The bill sets forth factors for extending such timeline for complex projects.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Interior, within 90 days after the initiation of a project study, must: (1) initiate the process for completing reviews, including environmental reviews, required to be completed as part of such study; (2) convene a meeting of federal, tribal, and state agencies required to act; and (3) provide information that will enable required reviews and analyses to be conducted by other agencies in a thorough and timely manner.

Interior must: (1) expedite the completion of any ongoing project study initiated before the enactment of this Act; and (2) proceed directly to preconstruction planning, engineering, and design of a project that it determines is justified.

The bill sets forth requirements applicable to: (1) project studies initiated after enactment of this Act for which an environmental impact statement is prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); (2) other project studies initiated before enactment for which an environmental review process document is prepared under NEPA; and (3) any project study for the development of a non-federally owned and operated surface water storage project for which Interior determines there is a demonstrable federal interest and that is located in a river basin where other Bureau water projects are located, that will create additional water supplies that support Bureau water projects, or that will become integrated into the operation of Bureau water projects. Interior must:

annually prepare a list of all such studies that do not have adequate funding for study completion;

develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for the development of such studies;

identify early all federal, state, and local government agencies and Indian tribes that may have jurisdiction and that may be required to act, which the federal lead agency shall invite to become participating or cooperating agencies;

issue guidance regarding the use of programmatic approaches to carry out the environmental review process; and

establish an electronic database and issue reporting requirements to make publicly available the status and progress with respect to compliance with applicable NEPA requirements and other action required for a project study.

The bill sets forth the authorities and responsibilities of the joint lead agency, which may be a project sponsor, and the federal lead agency in the environmental review process, including: (1) the preparation and use of environmental documents; (2) establishing a plan for coordinating public and agency participation; (3) working with cooperating and participating agencies to identify and resolve issues that could delay process completion or result in the denial of any approval required for the project study; and (4) establishing, upon request, memoranda of agreement with the project sponsor, Indian tribes, and state and local governments to carry out the early coordination activities.

The bill: (1) requires a federal lead agency to serve in that capacity for the entirety of all non-federal projects that will be integrated into a larger system owned, operated, or administered by the Bureau; (2) directs Interior, upon determining that a project can be expedited by a non-federal sponsor and that there is a demonstrable federal interest in expediting the project, to advance it as a non-federal project; (3) requires a federal jurisdictional agency to complete any required approval or decision for the environmental review process on an expeditious basis; and (4) provides for a reduction of funds for such an agency that fails to render such a decision by a specified deadline.

Interior must: (1) survey the use by the Bureau of categorical exclusions in projects since 2005 and propose a new categorical exclusion for a category of activities if merited, and (2) establish a program to measure and report on progress made toward improving and expediting the planning and environmental review process.

Interior must develop and submit annually a Report to Congress on Future Water Project Development that identifies: (1) the costs and benefits of, the non-federal interests associated with, and the support for project reports, proposed project studies, and proposed modifications to authorized projects and project studies that are related to the missions and authorities of the Bureau, that require specific congressional authorization, that have not been congressionally authorized, that have not been included in any previous annual report, and that, if authorized, could be carried out by the Bureau; and (2) any project study that was expedited under this bill.

The Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act is amended to make provisions regarding storage and other water supply projects inapplicable to any project under this bill.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4] · R–WA

Committees

  • Natural Resources Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

    2. Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

    3. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E150)

    4. Introduced in House

    5. Introduced in House

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Aug 11, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze H.R.875 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine H.R.875 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine H.R.875 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine H.R.875 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.

    View full prompt & sources