PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 4, 2007
Arkansas Valley Conduit Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to plan, design, and construct a water delivery pipeline, to be known as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, from a location in the vicinity of Pueblo Reservoir, Pueblo, to Lamar, Colorado.
Designates the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District, or its designee that is recognized under State law as an entity that has taxing authority, as the lead non-federal entity for the Conduit. Directs such entity to: (1) act as the official agent of the Conduit; (2) pay the non-federal share of any increased costs, including construction costs, under this Act; and (3) pay costs for and perform the operations, maintenance, and replacement of the Conduit. Sets the federal share of: (1) total planning, design, and construction costs at 80%; and (2) any increased costs that are a result of fundamental design changes conducted at the request of anyone other than such entity at 100%. Directs the Secretary, upon completion, to transfer ownership of the Conduit to such entity.
People & committees
Rep. Musgrave, Marilyn N. [R-CO-4] · R–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: Dec 5, 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.186 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.186 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.186 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.186 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.