PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 2009
Arkansas Valley Conduit Act of 2008 [sic] - Provides for the payment of not more than 35% of the cost of the Arkansas Valley Conduit, Colorado, by the Secretary of the Interior.
Requires revenue derived from contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange contracts using project facilities to be credited towards payment of the actual cost of Ruedi Dam and Reservoir, the Fountain Valley Pipeline, and the South Outlet Works at Pueblo Dam and Reservoir, until the date on which the payments for the Conduit begin, and then towards payment of the actual cost of the Conduit.
Requires any rates charged for water for municipal, domestic, or industrial use or for the use of facilities for the storage or delivery of water to be adjusted to reflect the estimated revenue derived from contracts for the use of Fryingpan-Arkansas project excess capacity or exchange contracts using project facilities.
Authorizes appropriations for the construction of the Conduit. Prohibits such sums from being used for its operation or maintenance.
People & committees
Rep. Salazar, John T. [D-CO-3] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.172 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.172 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.172 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.172 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.