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
Creates an agreement to address impacts of a Colorado River Basin decision on the Upper Colorado River Fund.
The problem
A record of decision affecting the Upper Colorado River Basin has created impacts that need to be addressed through a formal memorandum of understanding between involved parties.
The proposal
The bill authorizes the creation of a memorandum of understanding to address and manage the impacts of a specific record of decision on the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund.
The impact
Water users, states, tribes, and agencies in the Upper Colorado River Basin are affected by this formal agreement addressing implementation impacts and fund management.
Establishes a structured memorandum of understanding to ensure all parties communicate and coordinate on managing impacts. This reduces confusion and competing interests among water stakeholders in the region.
Addresses impacts to the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund, which supports water management, conservation, and resource development. Ensures resources are managed according to agreed-upon terms.
Formalizes agreements between states, tribes, and federal agencies over water rights and allocation. Reduces potential legal disputes and provides certainty for long-term planning.
The bill lacks detailed information about which specific record of decision is being addressed or what impacts require management. This makes it difficult to assess full consequences.
Creating a memorandum of understanding requires multiple parties to agree on solutions. Conflicting interests among states and water users could make negotiations difficult or result in compromise solutions.
The bill does not specify funding, timelines, or enforcement mechanisms for the memorandum. Without clear implementation details, the agreement may lack teeth or resources to be effective.
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.