PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2003
Lower Yellowstone Reclamation Projects Conveyance Act - Directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey the works, facilities, and lands of the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Project, the Intake Project in Montana, and the Savage Unit of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program to the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Districts No. 1 (Montana) and No. 2 (North Dakota), the Intake Irrigation District (Montana), and the Savage Irrigation District (Montana), respectively, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding of November 16, 1999, between the Districts and the Bureau of Reclamation. Requires: (1) all conveyances under this Act, except the Diversion Works (land and the diversion dam structure, canal headworks, and first section of the mail canal) to be conveyed in the first stage; and (2) the Diversion Works to be conveyed in the second stage..Requires the Districts to buy Reclamation withdrawn lands as identified in the Memorandum for their value in providing operation and maintenance benefits.Conditions the conveyance on the Secretary requiring payment of: (1) an amount equal to the present value of the remaining water supply repayment obligation from the Savage Irrigation District as full payment of such District's share of the construction of the Savage Unit; and (2) a specified amount from the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program (Eastern Division) power customers as full payment for the construction aid-to-irrigation associated with Unit facilities.Conditions the conveyance on the Lower Yellowstone Irrigation Districts conveying a perpetual conservation easement to the State of Montana for the purposes of protecting, preserving, and enhancing the conservation values and permitting recreation on Federal lands to be conveyed under this Act. Sets forth requirements regarding: (1) continuation of Pick-Sloan Program irrigation components and pumping power service; and (2) Yellowstone River fisheries protection.
People & committees
Rep. Rehberg, Dennis R. [R-MT-At Large] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.2257 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.2257 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.2257 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.2257 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.