H.R. 869: To clarify the definition of flood control operations for the purposes of the operation and maintenance of Project No. 2179 on the Lower Merced River.
Before you vote › Federal bills
H.R. 869: To clarify the definition of flood control operations for the purposes of the operation and maintenance of Project No. 2179 on the Lower Merced River.
112th Congress · introduced 2011-03-02 · Water Resources Development · Latest: Subcommittee Hearings Held.
federal
Follow this bill, step by step
- Where it came from: introduced 2011-03-02 · official record
- Who proposed it: Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-19] · what a sponsor is
- What happened next: no floor votes in our records yet. Why?
- Where it stands now: Subcommittee Hearings Held. Not final yet: this can still change. We check for updates every day.
- If it becomes law and spends money: follow the money to money laws, then agencies and contracts and grants.
Official title
To clarify the definition of flood control operations for the purposes of the operation and maintenance of Project No. 2179 on the Lower Merced River.
Plain summary
Amends federal law designating segments of the Lower Merced River for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System and providing that such designation shall not affect the continued operation and maintenance (including flood control operations) of the New Exchequer Project to define "flood control operations" to include occasional short-term increases in the level of Lake McClure not to exceed elevation 877 feet mean sea level for not to exceed 60 days between May 1 and July 31 of above-normal water years, as defined by the San Joaquin Valley 60-20-20 Hydrological Classification Index, developed by the California State Water Resources Control Board, or any successor index applicable to the Merced River watershed.
Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House), quoted unchanged (nonpartisan). Read the source.
What a vote does
A “Yea” vote
If it passes both chambers and is signed, it becomes law.
A “Nay” vote
If it is not passed, current law stays as it is.
PSI Sci description of the legislative step (not an opinion).
What does this mean? (plain words)
Official text
To clarify the definition of flood control operations for the purposes of the operation and maintenance of Project No. 2179 on the Lower Merced River.
Source: Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
AI explanation – may be wrong, check the official text
No AI explanation yet. It takes up to a minute to write and is then saved for everyone.
Limited to a few requests an hour per person.
The strongest published arguments
Arguments for (supporters)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Arguments against (opponents)
Needs sources: no published arguments on this side yet. We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
Alternatives
Needs sources: no published alternatives yet (for example a different bill, a law instead of an amendment, or keeping current law). We only show items backed by a published source. Suggest one.
How did my representative vote? · This bill's floor votes
Officials and money
Sponsor: Rep. Denham, Jeff [R-CA-19] · 4 cosponsors
Cost estimate: No cost estimate published yet.
Cosponsors on this site
Jim Costa (D-CA)
No linked floor roll calls in our collected records yet. This does not mean the bill has never had a vote. Check the official bill history.
Sources
- Congressional Research Service summary (Introduced in House)
- Congress.gov
- Data: GovInfo BILLSTATUS bulk data (Library of Congress), BILLSTATUS-112hr869.xml <https://www.govinfo.gov/bulkdata/BILLSTATUS/112/hr>
Record fed-us-cong112-hr869 · catalog fed-us-congress-bills-cong112 · updated 2026-11-15 by psicol fed-bills-cong112