PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Congressional Research Service
Version 82 · Passed Senate without amendment · Jul 26, 2005
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The expanded summary of the Senate reported version is repeated here.)
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, directly or through financial assistance to non-federal parties, to plan, design, and construct fish passage and screening facilities or habitat improvements at any non-federal water diversion or storage project located anywhere in the Columbia River Basin. Provides such authority when the Secretary determines that such facilities would enable the Bureau to meet its obligations for the construction, operation, and maintenance of federal reclamation projects in the Columbia River Basin, excluding the projects located in the Snake River Basin. Limits the federal share to 75% of project costs.
Authorizes the Secretary to assist a non-federal party who owns, operates, or maintains a non-federal water diversion or storage project and associated lands to obtain and comply with any required state, local, or tribal permits. Makes the Secretary subject to all federal laws applicable to activities associated with the construction of a fish passage and screening facility or habitat improvements. Directs the Secretary to: (1) comply with any applicable state water laws; and (2) coordinate with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, appropriate agencies of the states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and appropriate federally recognized Indian tribes in carrying out the program authorized by this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes the Reclamation Act of 1902 and other federal reclamation laws inapplicable to the non-federal water projects at which the fish passage and screening facilities authorized by this Act are located and the lands such projects irrigate. Declares that expenditures made by the Secretary under this Act shall not be a project cost assignable to any federal reclamation project and shall be non-reimbursable and non-returnable to the Treasury.
People & committees
Sen. Smith, Gordon H. [R-OR] · R–OR
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 Fisheries and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Received in the House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S9018-9052; text as passed Senate: CR S9033-9034)
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S9018-9052; text as passed Senate: CR S9033-9034)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 44.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-31.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Domenici without amendment. With written report No. 109-31.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
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.232 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.232 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.232 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.232 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.