Loading bill breakdown…
H.R. 1001119th CongressWater Resources Development
To provide for a memorandum of understanding to address the impacts of a certain record of decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
Sponsored by Rep. Harriet M. Hageman (R-WY) · 2 active : 2 Republicans
Latest action: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Where it standsPassed House, now in the Senate13 senators score as swing votes
Passed House
- House: passedMay 13, 2025
- Senate: next
- President: not yet
Summary
, via Congress.govThis bill directs the Bureau of Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration, in consultation with the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group, to enter into a memorandum of understanding to explore and address the impact that the 2024 record of decision entitled
Supplement to the 2016 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Record of Decision
Read full summaryHide full summary
has on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund. The memorandum of understanding must include a plan to (1) address the effects that the decision may have on the fund's obligations, (2) address the impact that the decision has on hydropower production at Glen Canyon Dam, and (3) identify impacts that the decision has had on species listed as threatened or endangered species.
By way of background, Reclamation published a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) in 2024. The SEIS revises the 2016 LTEMP Record of Decision to address two issues: (1) responding to the threat of the invasive smallmouth bass below Glen Canyon Dam, and (2) incorporating the latest sediment science to assess when high-flow experiments should be conducted in order to protect the endangered humpback chub.
Committees and subjects
Committees
- House Committee on Natural Resources · HouseReported by · Markup by · Referred to
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources · SenateReferred to
Subjects
- Arizona
- California
- Dams and canals
- Environmental assessment, monitoring, research
- Fishes
- Government trust funds
- Lakes and rivers
- Nevada
- Wildlife conservation and habitat protection
Model
Directional: count only breaks toward the other partyWhy do scores change?v3default (selected)v2 model swing-v2
How the Senate breaks down
- 13Swing 70–100
- 61Middle 30–70
- 26Entrenched 0–30
Members fall into . All 100 senators have enough data to score.
Key players in the Senate
Ranked by swing score, 0–100 · swing-v3, directional: only movement toward the other party counts, so members who sit further from the center than their party no longer score as swing votes.
Bars show each input from 0 to 100: ideology gap, scorecard gap, , and the . is the seat’s partisan lean, and shows how much of the input data a score has.
Similar past votes, Senate
Earlier behind swing-v3’s inputLoading similar votes
Cosponsors
2 activeShow all 2 cosponsors
- Celeste Maloy (R-UT-2)
- Burgess Owens (R-UT-4)
How the swing score works
Ideology gapHow far a member’s DW-NOMINATE voting score sits from their party’s median in the same chamber.
Scorecard gapHow far their Heritage Action and LCV ratings stray from their party’s average, using the groups’ votes on similar bills where available.
Cross-pressureHow strongly their district or state leans toward the other party, from our own computed partisan lean.
Similar votesHow often they voted against their own party on earlier roll calls about this bill or similar ones.
Committee bonusMembers of the committees handling the bill decide whether it moves, so they get a boost.
Cosponsor checkThe sponsor and active cosponsors have already committed, so they drop toward entrenched.
