Latest action: Held at the desk.
Originating chamber has voted to pass. Sent to the other chamber.
The Senate voted to pass the bill. It now moves to the House, which repeats the committee referral and floor-vote process.
Next: Passed Both Chambers
Conference committee (if versions differ), then the President
Extends water conservation programs in the Colorado River Basin.
The problem
Colorado River supplies water to seven western states. Conservation programs helping manage water shortages were set to expire. The region faces ongoing drought and competing water demands.
The proposal
Extends existing conservation incentive programs and funding mechanisms for water users in the Colorado River Basin to continue reducing water consumption.
The impact
Western water agencies, farmers, and states depending on Colorado River water are affected. Helps maintain water supplies for agriculture, cities, and ecosystems.
Keeps proven conservation programs running that have successfully reduced water use. These programs help the seven states manage limited water supplies during drought.
Farmers receive payments for using less water, helping them adapt to scarcity. Allows agricultural operations to continue while reducing overall water consumption.
Maintains reliable water supplies for cities and rural communities. Prevents sudden supply cuts that could affect millions of people.
Gives states and water agencies more time to plan long-term conservation strategies. Allows for gradual adjustment rather than abrupt program termination.
Extension delays permanent fixes to Colorado River water shortages. Does not address underlying imbalance between water demand and supply.
Unclear how the extension is funded or whether costs increase federal spending. May require taxpayer dollars without clear budget accountability.
Different states and water users benefit differently from conservation payments. May not fairly address all regions' water needs and challenges.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Other bills in this policy area
HR 7250
To reauthorize the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000.
HR 10602
Ottawa County Environmental Infrastructure Act
HR 10533
Newton County Water Infrastructure Improvement Act
S 2753
Urban Canal Modernization Act
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.