PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (text of measure as introduced: CR S11196-11197)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 5, 2006
Amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make modifications that are reasonably required to preserve the site security of Bureau of Reclamation dams and related facilities. Provides for specified reimbursement for costs incurred for building and site security activities.
Requires dam safety and site security costs allocated to irrigation, municipal, and industrial water service for the Central Valley Project, California, to be collected by the Secretary exclusively through inclusion of such costs in operation and maintenance rates, capital water rates, or a combination of both, not segregated from other project costs for separate allocation or repayment. Directs the Secretary, during site security-related construction, to consider cost containment measures.
Prohibits the obligation of funds exceeding a specified amount for carrying out actual construction to modify an existing dam, the cause of which results from new hydrologic or seismic data or changes in the state-of-the-art criteria deemed necessary for site security or structural safety purposes, prior to 30 calendar days after the Secretary has transmitted a report on such existing dam to Congress.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the Secretary to: (1) report annually to Congress on building and site measures carried out during the applicable fiscal year (including a summary of expenditures and information relating to a five-year plan for security measures detailed to show pre- and post-September 11, 2001 costs); (2) provide written notice to project beneficiaries upon identifying a Bureau facility for a site security measure; and (3) include in required reports the Secretary's response when a modification is the result of new data deemed necessary for structural safety purposes. Authorizes the Secretary to waive reporting requirements that could adversely impact site security.
People & committees
Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] · R–UT
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. (text of measure as introduced: CR S11196-11197)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S11196)
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.4079 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.4079 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.4079 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.4079 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.