Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Bill would sell off federal government's San Carlos Irrigation Project to private or local ownership.
The problem
The federal government operates the San Carlos Irrigation Project in Arizona. Some believe the government should divest from this water resource management responsibility.
The proposal
The bill authorizes the divestiture or transfer of the San Carlos Irrigation Project from federal control to state, local, or private entities.
The impact
Arizona farmers, water users, and communities depending on San Carlos water supply face potential changes in management, water access, and pricing.
Transferring the project could reduce federal budget obligations and operational costs. Private or local management might operate more efficiently without federal overhead.
Local or state entities may better understand regional water needs and priorities. Decision-making closer to users could improve responsiveness to community needs.
Private operators might implement modern technology and management practices. This could potentially improve water delivery systems and reduce waste.
Private operators typically seek profits, which could increase water prices for farmers and consumers. Low-income users might face affordability challenges.
Federal irrigation projects often operate below market rates, subsidizing agriculture. Privatization could eliminate these subsidies, burdening farmers economically.
Federal projects follow environmental regulations and sustainability standards. Private operators might prioritize profits over environmental protection and water conservation.
Divestiture could complicate existing water rights agreements and interstate water compacts. Legal disputes might arise over ownership and usage rights.
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 4040
Dakota Water Resources Act Amendments of 2026
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
No lobbying disclosures matched this bill.