This bill directs the Secretary of the Interior—acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation—to carry out a feasibility study, including hydrological modeling, on installing a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam. The study must examine options that optimize hydropower generation when releasing cold water and that prevent entrainment of invasive species, and it must be consistent with the 2016 and 2024 Long‑Term Experimental and Management Plan records of decision.
The statute gives the Secretary 18 months to finish the study, requires the use of appropriated funds that will be nonreimbursable, and obligates the Secretary to identify available funding sources within 90 days. If the Secretary finds an alternative feasible under the reclamation laws and the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power contractors concur, the Secretary may begin required compliance processes and construction.
The bill also preserves existing post‑2026 Lake Powell and Lake Mead reservoir operations guidelines.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs the Secretary of the Interior (through Reclamation) to complete a feasibility study, including hydrological modeling, on installing a selective water withdrawal system at Glen Canyon Dam that balances hydropower optimization with prevention of invasive‑species entrainment.
Who It Affects
Bureau of Reclamation operations, Colorado River Storage Project power contractors, Western grid operators reliant on Glen Canyon hydropower, and managers concerned with invasive species and cold‑water releases (including federal and state resource agencies and tribal stakeholders).
Why It Matters
The study could enable a technical retrofit that changes how water is withdrawn from Lake Powell—altering power output profiles, species risk management, and operational constraints—while creating new funding, compliance, and coordination questions for Reclamation and CRSP contractors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill is narrowly focused: it orders Reclamation to study whether a selective water withdrawal system can be installed at Glen Canyon Dam and what that system would mean for both hydropower production and invasive‑species control. Selective withdrawal systems let operators draw water from different depths of a reservoir (warmer surface water or colder deeper water) to meet downstream temperature and flow objectives.
Here, the study must explicitly model hydrology and evaluate alternatives that preserve cold‑water releases for ecosystem needs while preventing invasive species from entering the turbine intakes or river channel.
The Secretary must carry out the study in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and the CRSP power contractors. That consultation requirement gives power contractors an early seat at the table during technical design and feasibility work.
The bill requires the study to be completed within 18 months and to rely on appropriated funds; it also requires an identification of funding sources within 90 days. The statute states any federal funds used are nonreimbursable and nonreturnable, which limits downstream cost‑recovery mechanisms tied to power receipts or contractor reimbursement.If the feasibility study concludes a selective withdrawal alternative is 'feasible under the reclamation laws,' the Secretary may move forward with the administrative compliance (for example, environmental reviews and permitting) and with construction—provided the chosen alternative has the concurrence of the CRSP power contractors.
The bill does not itself authorize specific construction appropriations beyond the study, and it explicitly preserves the post‑2026 reservoir operations guidelines for Lake Powell and Lake Mead, so any retrofit must be reconciled with those operational constraints.Practically, this statute creates a fast‑tracked technical assessment that could feed into later design and construction decisions. It shifts some decision leverage to the power contractors (through the concurrence requirement), requires Reclamation to identify funding quickly, and narrows the study scope to alternatives consistent with prior long‑term experimental and management plan records of decision.
The result will be a technical record and a go/no‑go decision point rather than immediate physical changes at the dam.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires the feasibility study to include all hydrological modeling and to evaluate alternatives that both optimize hydropower generation during cold‑water releases and prevent entrainment of invasive species, explicitly referencing the 2016 and 2024 LTEMP RODs and SEIS/ROD.
The Secretary must conduct the study through the Bureau of Reclamation and consult with the Secretary of Energy and Colorado River Storage Project power contractors during the study process.
The Secretary has an 18‑month statutory deadline from enactment to complete the feasibility study.
The study must be paid for with appropriated federal funds; those funds are designated nonreimbursable and nonreturnable, and the Secretary must identify available funding sources within 90 days of enactment.
If an alternative is found 'feasible under the reclamation laws' and the CRSP power contractors concur with the chosen alternative, the Secretary may begin required compliance actions and construction of the chosen alternative.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Scope and objectives of the feasibility study
This subsection defines the study's technical scope: Reclamation must analyze selective withdrawal system alternatives with hydrological modeling and consider how each alternative balances hydropower optimization (particularly during cold‑water releases) with prevention of invasive‑species entrainment. It ties the study to prior NEPA records of decision—the 2016 LTEMP ROD and the 2024 LTEMP SEIS/ROD—so proposed alternatives must conform to those programmatic decisions rather than proposing measures that contradict the earlier environmental framework.
Feasibility finding and conditional construction authority
This subsection sets the decision rule: if Reclamation determines an alternative is feasible under reclamation law, the Secretary may proceed to the compliance steps and construction, but only if the CRSP power contractors concur with the selected alternative. That creates a two‑part gate: a legal/technical feasibility determination by the agency and an operational/political concurrence by the contractors who rely on Glen Canyon power. 'Begin compliance' implies starting the environmental reviews, permits and other statutory processes necessary before construction.
Study timeline
The statute mandates completion of the feasibility study not later than 18 months after enactment. That is a firm statutory deadline for a technically complex study that includes hydrological modeling, stakeholder consultation, and likely interagency coordination. The tight timeline pressures Reclamation to scope deliverables and contractors' input rapidly.
Funding rules and identification requirement
Subsection (d) directs that appropriated funds pay for the study and makes any federal funding used nonreimbursable and nonreturnable. It also requires the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and CRSP contractors, to identify sources of available funds within 90 days of enactment. The combination of a funding identification deadline and a nonreimbursable designation shapes both budget planning and the potential for future cost recovery or contractor billing.
Preservation of post‑2026 reservoir operations
This short subsection clarifies that nothing in the study directive modifies the post‑2026 operations guidelines and strategies for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. In practical terms, any evaluated alternatives must be reconciled with those operational constraints, and the study cannot be used as a mechanism to change the post‑2026 operating regime outside the established rulemaking or agreement processes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Energy across all five countries.
Explore Energy in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- CRSP power contractors and Western grid operators — A selective withdrawal system could increase flexibility and net hydropower generation during certain release regimes, improving revenue or power availability if the retrofit performs as modeled.
- Fish and river managers concerned with cold‑water habitat — The study focuses on preserving cold‑water releases while addressing invasive‑species entrainment, potentially yielding technical solutions that better protect native aquatic ecosystems below Glen Canyon.
- Bureau of Reclamation and federal technical staff — A clarified technical record and modeling results will reduce uncertainty about retrofit feasibility and inform future capital planning for dam infrastructure.
- Environmental scientists and modelers — The mandated hydrological modeling and focused study will produce new data and scenario analyses useful for broader Colorado River science and management efforts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal taxpayers (appropriators) — The study is to be funded by appropriated federal funds that are nonreimbursable, so initial costs fall to the federal budget.
- Bureau of Reclamation operational budgets and staff time — Reclamation must marshal technical resources on an 18‑month schedule, which may divert staff and program funds from other projects during the study period.
- CRSP power contractors — Contractors must engage in consultations and, under the bill's structure, must concur before construction can proceed, which may require technical reviews and possible financial commitments to any future retrofit.
- Permitting and compliance agencies (state, federal, tribal) — If construction proceeds, these agencies will incur costs and workload associated with environmental review, permitting, and monitoring to meet compliance started under the bill.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate but competing objectives: improve hydropower output and operational flexibility at Glen Canyon versus maintain (and in some ways enhance) protections against invasive‑species entrainment and preserve downstream cold‑water habitat. Achieving better power economics may push designs that change withdrawal depth or timing; enforcing ecological safeguards and existing post‑2026 operational constraints may limit those same designs—leaving Reclamation and the contractors to choose between electrical output and ecological/risk management priorities.
The bill creates a narrow, time‑bound technical mandate but leaves several implementation details unresolved. First, 'feasible under the reclamation laws' is a legal standard that can include statutory limits on project purposes, cost allocation rules, repayment obligations, and state‑federal water law constraints; the bill does not define which reclamation criteria control feasibility determinations or how cost‑allocation for construction would be handled if the study supports retrofitting.
Second, the funding rules—appropriated funds that are nonreimbursable and nonreturnable—limit Reclamation's ability to recoup study costs from power revenues or contractor reimbursements, but the statute does not address funding for any subsequent construction, maintenance, or operational changes.
Third, the contractors' concurrence requirement gives CRSP power contractors practical leverage over whether construction proceeds. That allocative role reduces unilateral agency authority but could also produce deadlock if contractors and the agency disagree about tradeoffs between generation and ecological protections.
Fourth, the bill preserves the post‑2026 reservoir operations guidelines, which constrains the universe of acceptable alternatives; reconciling a new withdrawal system with those operational rules may sharply limit technical solutions or require additional coordination under separate processes. Finally, the 18‑month schedule is ambitious for meaningful hydrological modeling, stakeholder consultation, interagency review, and legal analysis—rushing technical work risks producing conclusions that require substantial follow‑on study or face legal challenge.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.