Water Projects I

House Roll Call Vote 356

1987 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

220

Votes Against

184

Not Voting

28

Environmentalists have struggled for years to reform water development policies so that project beneficiaries pay their fair share of the costs. This is essential to weed out projects whose fiscal and environmental costs exceed their benefits. The Water and Power Authorization Act set several dangerous precedents which could endanger these reforms. It waives repayment requirements for the Redwood Valley water district in California and the city of Dickinson in North Dakota, thus reducing incentives to curb future spending. It funds an additional $17 million for the Oroville-Tonasket Unit in Washington, which is already plagued by cost overruns. Environmentalists question whether the Bureau of Reclamation should be allowed to increase subsidies for these and other western water projects, some of which would have adverse environmental impacts. The House Interior Committee held no hearings on any of the Act’s ten authorizations.

Furthermore, the bill allows the Bureau of Reclamation to divert even more water from the Colorado River by means of two large irrigation projects and a dam. The combined effect could drain the Colorado almost completely dry below the Grand Valley Irrigation Company during the growing season. This would be very damaging to wildlife, and threaten the habitat of the squawfish, an endangered species. This bill passed 220-184 on October 22, 1987. Because of the cost waivers and environmental impact, NO is the pro-environmental vote.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

78%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

51%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

28%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

34%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

98%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

81%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

22%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

23%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

19%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

38%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

76%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

85%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

44%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

50%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

2%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

69%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

73%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

72%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

26%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

33%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

82%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

47%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

14%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

10%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

31%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

100%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

58%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

75%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

25%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%