Celeste Maloy (R-UT)
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam, and for other purposes.
A Republican bill with 2 Republican cosponsors · See all 2 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study on a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. The goal is to optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water and prevent the entrainment of invasive species. The Secretary must work with the Secretary of Energy and power contractors to complete this study within 18 months. If a feasible alternative is found and power contractors agree, construction may begin.
Yes· 3 of 14
- Scored +3
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill specifically aims to prevent the entrainment of invasive species.
- Scored +2
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
Invests in the feasibility and potential construction of a system to optimize hydropower.
- Scored +2
Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests?
Provides a structured study for improving the management of water releases at Glen Canyon Dam.
The opposite
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government owes?
Requires the use of appropriated federal funds for a study that are nonreimbursable.
- Scored -1
Does this reduce what the federal government spends?
Allocates federal funds for the execution of a feasibility study.
- Scored -1
Does this make the government pay for what it commits to?
Designates federal funds as nonreimbursable and nonreturnable.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Optimized Hydropower Generation: The bill seeks to optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water from the dam (Section 1(a)).
- Invasive Species Control: The system aims to prevent the entrainment of invasive species (Section 1(a)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Use of Public Funds: The costs for the feasibility study are to be paid by the Secretary using appropriated funds (Section 1(d)(1)).
- Nonreimbursable Funding: Any Federal funds used for this section are designated as nonreimbursable and nonreturnable to the United States (Section 1(d)(2)).
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill specifically aims to prevent the entrainment of invasive species. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Provides a structured study for improving the management of water releases at Glen Canyon Dam. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Invests in the feasibility and potential construction of a system to optimize hydropower. Does this invest in rural communities? — Improvements to dam infrastructure can benefit local rural energy grids. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Optimizing hydropower generation supports renewable energy production.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Directly impacts the infrastructure and energy efficiency of a rural region. Would business owners be better off under this? — Power contractors may benefit from optimized hydropower generation. Would farmers be better off under this? — Better water and energy management at dams can potentially stabilize resources for downstream agriculture. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Environmental improvements in the Colorado River basin often benefit tribal lands and resources. Would union members be better off under this? — Potential construction work for the system could benefit trade unions.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Funds hydrological modeling and a feasibility study for engineering solutions.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Optimizing hydropower generation can lead to more efficient energy production. Is this likely to create jobs? — Potential for construction jobs if the feasibility study leads to the building of a new water withdrawal system. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Designates federal funds as nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Allocates federal funds for the execution of a feasibility study. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Requires the use of appropriated federal funds for a study that are nonreimbursable.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Directs the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a specific federal study.
- 6/10/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/26/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Jeff CrankRepublican · Colorado
Burgess OwensRepublican · Utah