Overview
Title
To prohibit the use of Federal funds to allow or study the breach or alteration of the Lower Snake River dams, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 2073 is a rule that stops the government from spending money to change or study certain big dams in Washington, like taking them apart or changing how they work. It also says certain people need to agree before these dams can let extra water flow over them.
Summary AI
H.R. 2073, titled the “Defending our Dams Act,” aims to prevent the use of federal funds for activities related to breaching or altering the Lower Snake River dams in Washington. It prohibits the allocation of federal money for studies or technical assistance that might lead to changes in dam functions, such as power production or navigation. Moreover, the bill restricts the Army Corps of Engineers from performing spillage operations at these dams unless approved by both the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration. The legislation specifically names the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dams.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 2073, known as the "Defending Our Dams Act," is proposed legislation aimed at preserving the operational status of the Lower Snake River dams in Washington state. The bill seeks to prevent the use of federal funds for any actions that may lead to the breaching, alteration, or study of these dams, which include the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dams. Additionally, it restricts spillage operations at these dams unless approved by both the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration.
Summary of Significant Issues
One significant issue lies in the complexity of the language used in the bill, especially in Section 2(a). This section outlines the prohibition of federal funding for certain activities concerning the dams but does so in a way that could be ambiguous or overly complex. The listed activities—such as 'breach,' 'functional alteration,' and studies related to power and flood control—may benefit from clearer definitions to prevent misinterpretation.
Section 2(b)(1) introduces a potential bottleneck in the approval process for spillage operations, requiring dual approval from high-level officials. This requirement could lead to delays or conflicts if disagreements arise between the involved parties. The broad mandate to consider "all Columbia River System operations" in Section 2(b)(2) also poses challenges due to its lack of specific evaluation criteria, which could hinder clear decision-making.
Lastly, Section 2(c)'s reliance on historical legislation for defining "Lower Snake River dams" may present a barrier to those unfamiliar with the 1945 Act, necessitating further research to fully comprehend this context.
Impact on the Public
The bill's impact on the public could be multifaceted. By limiting federal funding towards studies or actions that might alter the dams, the bill appears to prioritize maintaining the existing infrastructure and its associated benefits—such as hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, and navigation. This could lead to stability for communities that rely on these services, potentially preventing disruptions to their economic activities and daily lives.
On the other hand, the bill may also provoke debate among environmental groups and stakeholders advocating for dam breaching to aid in the recovery of fish populations and river ecosystem restoration. Without federal support for further studies or alternative infrastructure considerations, concerns over environmental impacts might remain unaddressed, affecting public perception and support.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The bill is likely to have varying effects on different stakeholders. River communities and industries that depend on the dams for electricity and transportation are likely to view the bill favorably, as it seeks to ensure the continuity of the dams' operations. This could sustain local economies and preserve jobs tied to these industries.
Conversely, environmental organizations and indigenous groups advocating for dam removal to restore natural habitats and protect endangered species might see this legislation as a setback. The restriction on federal funding for related studies or actions could limit efforts to evaluate the long-term ecological benefits of dam breaching.
Overall, H.R. 2073 presents a complex policy decision that weighs the maintenance of existing infrastructure against the possible ecological improvements from dam alteration, reflecting broader discussions on balancing industrial interests with environmental sustainability.
Issues
The language in Section 2(a) regarding the prohibition on the use of federal funds for activities related to the Lower Snake River dams is complex and could lead to confusion. The section includes multiple activities like 'breach', 'functional alteration', and 'study of power, flood control, or navigation replacement', which might benefit from simplification or clearer explanation to avoid misinterpretation.
Section 2(b)(1) outlines a requirement for approval by both the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration for any spillage operations. This dual approval process could result in delays or conflicts, particularly if the two parties disagree, potentially impacting the timely management of the dams.
The language in Section 2(b)(2) that requires consideration of 'all Columbia River System operations' is broad and ambiguous. It does not specify criteria for weighing or evaluating these operations, leaving room for varied interpretations that could complicate decision-making processes.
The purpose and potential outcomes of the spillage operations referred to in Section 2(b) are not clearly defined in the text, which may lead to misunderstandings about their significance or urgency, affecting stakeholders and planning processes.
Section 2(c) provides a definition of 'Lower Snake River dams' that relies heavily on a reference to the Act of March 2, 1945. This reliance might pose challenges for those unfamiliar with the historical legal context or in need of further cross-referencing, complicating the understanding and implementation of the section.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill specifies its official title as the “Defending our Dams Act.”
2. Lower Snake River dams Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section prohibits the use of federal funds for breaching or altering the Lower Snake River dams, and also prohibits spillage operations at these dams unless approved by the Secretary of the Army and the Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration. The dams affected by these regulations are the Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite dams in Washington.