S-3743-119
Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 653.
Sponsored by Mike Lee (R-UT)
What it does
This bill would direct the Interior Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to study alternatives (such as a thermal curtain or a selective water withdrawal system) at Glen Canyon Dam that address invasive species downstream while preserving hydropower generation. The study would be due within 18 months, followed by a feasibility report to congressional committees that includes cost allocation and hydropower rate effects. If an option is found feasible, the Secretary may begin design and construction, and the authority would expire after 5 years.
Who benefits
Colorado River Storage Project power customers (utilities, cooperatives, tribes, and their ratepayers) who may avoid hydropower losses from bypass releases. Native fish and downstream ecosystems in the Grand Canyon if invasive predator fish are reduced. Tribal nations and recreational users such as anglers and river guides in the Glen Canyon and Grand Canyon area. Basin states and Interior agencies that would gain a formal analysis to guide management.
Who is hurt
Federal taxpayers, since study funds are nonreimbursable and any construction would carry costs that may be large. Hydropower ratepayers could face higher rates if construction costs are allocated to power revenues. Agencies such as Reclamation, USGS, and Fish and Wildlife Service would divert staff and budget to the study. Parties favoring other approaches to Colorado River management, or concerned about warming water flows and construction impacts, may see the effort as a distraction from broader operations decisions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that warm water releases from a low Lake Powell let invasive predator fish such as smallmouth bass pass downstream, threatening native species like the humpback chub, and that bypass releases to cool the water forfeit hydropower revenue. They contend a structured study with required hydrological modeling, cost allocation, and Western Area Power Administration input would give Congress reliable data before any construction is authorized. The 5-year sunset and the explicit protection of long-range reservoir operations criteria limit the scope of the authority.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that a study can lead to a very costly dam modification, with federal funds designated nonreimbursable and construction costs possibly passed to power customers, at a time when Colorado River supplies are strained. They contend the bill lets the Secretary begin design and construction after finding an option feasible, without a further congressional vote. They also argue that infrastructure at the dam does not address the underlying low-reservoir conditions, and that resources may be better spent on water conservation and operations.
Constitutional context
Congress's authority rests on the Property Clause (Art. IV, §3) and the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) over federal dams and water projects. The bill raises no significant constitutional question, though the delegated authority to proceed to construction touches ordinary nondelegation principles, which the Court has applied only deferentially since J.W. Hampton v. United States (1928).
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Interior and Reclamation) gains study and possible construction authority, while Congress retains oversight through required reports to its committees, appropriations control, and a 5-year sunset.
Historical precedent
The Grand Canyon Protection Act of 1992 and the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (2016, supplemented 2024) established the existing framework for dam operations that this bill builds on.