PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Congressional Research Service
Version 01 · Reported to Senate with amendment(s) · Feb 16, 2007
Wallowa Lake Dam Rehabilitation and Water Management Act of 2007 - Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, 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 and any activities under this Act meet the standards of the dam safety program of Oregon; (2) ADC agrees to assume liability for any work performed or supervised with such funds; and (3) the United States shall not be liable for damages arising out of any act relating to a facility rehabilitated or constructed with such funds, regardless of whether the damages arose during or after the rehabilitation or construction.
Limits the federal share of the cost of activities authorized under this Act to 50%. Prohibits crediting against the federal share: (1) any expenditure by the Bonneville Power Administration in the Wallowa River watershed; or (2) expenditures made by individual agricultural producers in any federal commodity or conservation program. Requires the Secretary, in carrying out this Act, to comply with applicable Oregon state water law. Prohibits the federal government from holding title to, or being responsible for the operation and maintenance of, any facility rehabilitated or constructed under this Act.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares that activities funded under this Act shall not be considered a supplemental or additional benefit under federal reclamation law.
Authorizes appropriations.
Terminates the Secretary's authority to carry out this Act 10 years after its enactment.
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.
Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5530)
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 49.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 110-23.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Reported by Senator Bingaman with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. With written report No. 110-23.
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute 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.
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.264 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.264 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.264 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.264 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.