PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 20, 1995
Amends the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate a specified segment of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River in Washington State as a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Provides that only public land adjacent to the segment, and no privately-owned land, shall be included in it. Requires the Secretary of the Interior to: (1) manage the segment as a recreational river; and (2) meet specified criteria in developing and periodically revising a plan for the management of the segment. Retains access corridors in existence on the enactment of this Act. Requires the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers of the Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation and coordination with the heads of relevant Federal agencies and State and local governments, to develop a comprehensive plan of improvement for restoration and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, river access, and overall aesthetics of the levees and other rivershore areas downstream of the segment in the Tri-Cities area of the Washington State. Requires the Secretary, acting through the Chief and subject to receipt of a statement of interest from the non-Federal interests for the following projects, to complete a preliminary restoration plan under the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 for: (1) a portion of the Clover Island rivershore and a portion of the levee immediately upstream of Clover Island; (2) the rivershore immediately upstream of the portion in the city of Kennewick, Washington, to the U.S. Route 395 bridge; (3) the levee modified in 1994 between Road 39 and the U.S. Route 395 bridge in Franklin County, Washington; and (4) the levee between the U.S. Route 395 bridge to the area immediately downstream of the 10th Avenue bridge in the city of Pasco, Washington. Directs the Secretary, subject to the receipt of necessary commitments from the non-Federal interests, to complete a modification report for each project.
People & committees
Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to Subcommittee on Parks, Preservation and Recreation.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S19007-19008)
Introduced in Senate
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: 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 S.1489 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 S.1489 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 S.1489 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 S.1489 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.