What This Bill Does
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to study whether Glen Canyon Dam could use a selective water withdrawal system. The study would look at how to optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water while also reducing the entrainment of invasive species, and it must include hydrological modeling. If the Secretary finds a studied alternative feasible under reclamation law and the Colorado River Storage Project power contractors agree, the government could then move toward compliance and construction of that option.
- Directs a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam.
- Study must include hydrological modeling and be completed within 18 months.
- Secretary of the Interior acts through the Commissioner of Reclamation.
- Consultation is required with the Secretary of Energy and Colorado River Storage Project power contractors.
- Any federal funds used are nonreimbursable and nonreturnable to the United States.
Who This Bill Affects
For most people, this bill has little immediate direct effect because it only orders a feasibility study for Glen Canyon Dam and does not itself change water deliveries, electricity rates, or reservoir rules. If you live in the Colorado River region or rely on hydropower and river management decisions, the bill could matter indirectly by shaping whether a new dam operation system is later built, but that would depend on a future feasibility finding and contractor agreement.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Hydropower operators and Colorado River power contractors They may support the study because the bill is explicitly designed to optimize hydropower generation when cold water is released from Glen Canyon Dam. A selective withdrawal system could improve operational flexibility if it proves feasible under reclamation law.
- Water managers and dam engineers They may favor a formal feasibility study because the bill requires hydrological modeling and a structured review before any construction. That can clarify whether a selective withdrawal system would actually work and what trade-offs it would create.
- Environmental managers concerned about invasive species Supporters may argue that the bill could help prevent entrainment of invasive species while still allowing dam operations to continue. That makes it a targeted way to address ecological impacts without immediately changing broader Colorado River rules.
- Taxpayers concerned about federal spending They may object that the bill uses appropriated federal funds for a study and says those funds are nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. Critics could see that as another federal expense with no guarantee of a construction outcome.
- Groups wary of new dam construction costs They may worry that a feasibility study is the first step toward expensive compliance and construction work at Glen Canyon Dam. Even if the bill is limited at first, it could create momentum for a costly infrastructure project.
- Stakeholders focused on existing Colorado River operations They may prefer not to reopen operational questions around Glen Canyon Dam because the bill could lead to a new alternative being studied and potentially built. Although it preserves post-2026 Lake Powell and Lake Mead guidelines, it still introduces another layer of review into dam management.
Key Implications
-
““carry out a feasibility study (including all hydrological modeling)””
This means the bill is not just a paper review; it requires technical analysis of how water would move and how the system would perform. That kind of modeling is important because it can determine whether the project is practical or too disruptive.
-
““optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water””
The bill is trying to improve the dam’s electricity-producing function while managing water temperature. In practice, that could affect how the dam is operated and how much power it can produce under certain release conditions.
-
““preventing entrainment of invasive species””
The study must also consider ecological impacts, especially whether fish or other invasive species get pulled into the dam system. That makes the bill relevant to river ecology and downstream water management, not just energy production.
-
““complete the feasibility study… not later than 18 months””
The bill sets a firm deadline, which pushes the Interior Department to finish the analysis on a defined timeline. That can speed up decision-making, but it also means the study has to be completed before any long-term construction decision is made.
-
““Nothing in this section affects the post-2026… guidelines””
This is a guardrail: the bill does not rewrite the broader Colorado River reservoir operating rules for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. So even if the study goes forward, the existing post-2026 framework remains in place.
Latest Status
June 10, 2026
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Ordered to be reported with an amendment in the nature of a substitute favorably.
Related Bills
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.